Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GNU Gneural Network

gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 111 posts

Re: GNU Gneural Network

#81

Post by gcr »

imglorp wrote: post #72
gcr wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Models trained on DVD audio are considered derived works. You certainly couldn't release such a model under the GPL. You also have to solve the (very difficult) subtitle alignment problem before you could begin training.

Really? It's not like you could take the neural net weights aggregated from thousands of movies and retrieve any form of entertainment from them. Is a derived work anything at all based on an original, or just something in the similar field, ie entertainment->entertainment?

My own personal definition is whether the derivative work could survive if the first work did not exist, not for which purpose it was intended to be consumed. Not sure about the legal definition.

Re: GNU Gneural Network

#82

Post by versteegen »

gcr wrote: post #60
_delirium wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is about as permissively as it could be licensed because the ImageNet training data itself is under an academic-only license anyway. Does this necessarily follow, that a machine-learning model is a derived work of all data it's trained on? As far as I know, the law in this area isn't really settled. And many companies are operating on the assumption that this isn't the case. It would lead to some absurd conclu…

I'm not aware of the formal legality of it, but I don't see why it wouldn't be the case. Without the training data, the model can't work. That seems to fit the definition of "derivative work".

IANAL, but I looked at the definition of derivative work, and it seems really hard to apply to learning algorithms. But I'm going to disagree with you. I notice that US law mentions "preexisting material employed in the work". IMO a set of neural network weights contains no preexisting material at all. All the examples of derivative works include at parts of previously copyrighted works directly.

I'd like to note that some publishers, like Elsevier, allow you access to their dataset (full texts of articles) under a license with the condition that you can not freely distribute models learnt from their data.

Re: GNU Gneural Network

#83

Post by eggy »

fche wrote: post #26

The "ethical motivations" section is out of place here. Its moaning about "money driven companies" (as though money were a bad thing), or "monopoly" (which does not exist in AI), just reflects badly upon the project.

You are correct. Money is just a way of measuring value that we agree upon that manifests itself in credit or paper currency, but is just an object. Appealing to the masses with "money driven companies" is an intellectually dishonest argument to froth it up a bit.

Re: GNU Gneural Network

#84

Post by niij »

mindcrime wrote: post #42
typon wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words, not at all

That's not necessarily relevant though. I'm sure the FSF would love to see Free Software replace all proprietary software, but in the end, the real point is that Free Software options are available to the people who want them. This isn't like a battle between commercial entities where market share is king and a project will be dropped if it isn't profitable. Gneural will be a success if a community forms around it an…

The problem I have with it is that they could be contributing their brain power and time to other open source projects instead of recreating the wheel for very little benefit. Take my opinion with a grain of salt, as I consider the more restrictive Copyleft licensing as new /loss/ for society.

Re: GNU Gneural Network

#85

Post by capitalsigma »

simondedalus wrote: post #5
_delirium wrote: post #3

I agree with the general motivation that having too much AI research in the hands of software companies who keep it proprietary harms transparency and progress. But there is already a lot of neural-network free software, so why another package? For example, these widely used packages are free software, and seemingly more featureful: http://torch.ch/ , http://www.deeplearning.net/software/theano/ , http://pybrain.org/…

I think the idea is to use awareness of GNU and also to focus the attention of people with the skill to contribute on neural-networks. What I mean is, you're right of course, there's much better neural-network free software already available, but GNU endorsing an official package 1) could get people whose concerns are more strongly geared toward free software ethics to start paying attention to neural networks, and 2…

Right. I don't think this is meant to be immediately competitive against other, more mature neural net implementations. It's just GNU getting some skin in the game and giving people another option to use/contribute to. I think this might be a fun project to submit some changes to, since there's probably plenty of easy problems left to solve with such a new implementation.

Re: GNU Gneural Network

#86

Post by jacquesm »

IshKebab wrote: post #50
mindcrime wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the general motivation that having too much AI research in the hands of software companies who keep it proprietary harms transparency and progress. But there is already a lot of neural-network free software, so why another package? Not only is there a lot out there, a lot of it was released by companies like IBM[1], Google[2], Yahoo[3], Baidu[4], Microsoft[5], etc. So while I'm generally sympathetic to t…

Yeah they've really missed the fact that it isn't the algorithms or code that we're missing out on. Companies are usually pretty open about these because they know it isn't bit that is hard to compete on. The hard bit is the training data. Good luck collecting 10k hours of transcribed speech, or 10k recordings of "Okay Google".

> The hard bit is the training data.

That, plus acquiring a team skilled enough to make good use of the code.

Re: GNU Gneural Network

#87

Post by harshreality »

gcr wrote: post #59
sjtgraham wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Good luck collecting 10k hours of transcribed speech I'm sure that nearly every DVD theatrical release has subtitles available. Speech against a wide range of background noise too, e.g. music, explosions, traffic, normal ambient noise, etc. Seems a good start for acquiring a large corpus of labelled speech.

Models trained on DVD audio are considered derived works. You certainly couldn't release such a model under the GPL. You also have to solve the (very difficult) subtitle alignment problem before you could begin training.

I'm a neural net trained substantially on copyrighted books, music, tv, and movies. Does that mean I'm a derived work, and consequently all works I create are derived works as well?

I'm not saying you're wrong, necessarily. Since copyright is so vague as to allow that interpretation, that shows how much copyright is incoherent, contradictory, broken, and, ultimately, nonsense.

Re: GNU Gneural Network

#88

Post by chei0aiV »

IshKebab wrote: post #50
mindcrime wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the general motivation that having too much AI research in the hands of software companies who keep it proprietary harms transparency and progress. But there is already a lot of neural-network free software, so why another package? Not only is there a lot out there, a lot of it was released by companies like IBM[1], Google[2], Yahoo[3], Baidu[4], Microsoft[5], etc. So while I'm generally sympathetic to t…

Yeah they've really missed the fact that it isn't the algorithms or code that we're missing out on. Companies are usually pretty open about these because they know it isn't bit that is hard to compete on. The hard bit is the training data. Good luck collecting 10k hours of transcribed speech, or 10k recordings of "Okay Google".

http://voxforge.org/

Re: GNU Gneural Network

#89

Post by chei0aiV »

cdibona wrote: post #69
semisight wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost all of the open source software in the area is permissive-licensed, and relies on non-free components (CUDA). To be honest, I'm not sure how Gneural plans to compete with those packages without support from CUDA or cuDNN, all of which are distinctly not open source.

The use of the gplv3 allows gnueral to have, as a dependency, any of the apache or permissive licensed tools like TF, torch, etc, and then through those tools 'export' their dependence on non-free components from nvidia and others. I don't think this is wrong, per se, but it is ...funny when the fsf portrays their work as morally superior to us horrible corporate permissive license lovers, while inexorably depending…

Does the FSF really depend on non-free components?

Re: GNU Gneural Network

#90

Post by mieko »

gcr wrote: post #81
imglorp wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? It's not like you could take the neural net weights aggregated from thousands of movies and retrieve any form of entertainment from them. Is a derived work anything at all based on an original, or just something in the similar field, ie entertainment->entertainment?

My own personal definition is whether the derivative work could survive if the first work did not exist, not for which purpose it was intended to be consumed. Not sure about the legal definition.

Legally, there is a huge gradient between length(work), sha(work), train(transcription(work)), transcription(work), thumbnail(work), etc. Your personal definition of "derived" sounds a lot like the mathematical definition, which isn't amazingly useful in a copyright context.

> Not sure about the legal definition.

Perhaps stating "You certainly couldn't release such a model under the GPL." so surely isn't a great idea?

Post reply on HN