331–340 of 450 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Implying the "AI" community respects intellectual property rights.
Also implying software companies do respect open source licenses
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is that different from "This evidence for X raises the risk that people falsely believe that X"? That's an argument for X, not against. And nothing in that paper, even if I discard the dross (ie. everything except one section on page 7), seems to actually make an argument against X of any strength beyond "it is wrong because it is wrong". My point is this: I disagree with you. This is not because I have "misunder…
> it is because I understand the stochastic-parrot argument and think it is erroneous. Okay then, what exactly about it is erroneous? Because stochastically sorting the set M of known tokens by likelyhood of being the next, is literally what LLMs do.
This is one of those: yes, technically LLMs are token predictors, but technically any nondeterministic Turing machine is a token predictor. The human brain could be viewed as a token predictor [1]. The interesting question is how it comes up with its predictions, and on this the phrase offers no insight at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It shouldn't matter if the copyright holder agreed to it directly, if they've published the original code under an open source license. Since open source licenses all allow people to use the code for "whatever" Even GPL doesn't (yet) include a clause saying the code can't be used to train AI unless the AI itself is open source
> Since open source licenses all allow people to use the code for "whatever" That's not what they allow for, and copyright being a 'right' it allows you to pass those rights on to others and to retain some for yourself. If not explicitly passed on the right still rests with the original author, plenty of precedent for that.
Therefore isn't following the terms of the copyright grant, ergo doesn't have a license for use, ergo is violating copyright.
Now what does that look like when I take 100 different open source licenses, including MIT, put them in a GPT blender, and then productize my output without following any of the licenses?
... makes you think there might be a legal component to why OpenAI switched to a SaaS model. Although believe they'd still be in hot water over any AGPL et al. code.
> The code that was regurgitated by the model is marketed as "AI generated" and available for use for any project you want. Including proprietary ones. It's laundering open-source code. All of the decades of knowledge and uncountable hours of work is being, well, stolen. There is nothing being given back. Leaving GitHub wont change that, OpenAI is training its models on every bit of code they can have, sourcehut, cod…
This whole open source thing is the biggest farce on planet Earth. Someone with a good knowledge about geeks and their behaviour concocted up this open source bullshit. So now talented people give their skill to the "whole" and they have to beg for contributions and donations to get by. And other geeks (not suits with ties) finance the ones they sympathise with. It's ridiculous. And faceless entities use their hard w…
FWIW, I keep thinking about some kind of dual licensing, FOSS and something-something-royalties. (Sorry, IANAL, so haven't gotten any further.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's the spirit here not really. All this Free Software movement started by something really similar to "right to repair", a firmware bug in a printer that was proprietary software. Free Software is about being in control of software you use. The spirit was never "contribute back to GNU", the spirit was always "if you take GNU software, you can't make it non-free". Those GNU devs at the time just wanted a good an…
> All this Free Software movement started by something really similar to "right to repair", a firmware bug in a printer that was proprietary software. Free Software is about being in control of software you use. The spirit was never "contribute back to GNU", the spirit was always "if you take GNU software, you can't make it non-free". Those GNU devs at the time just wanted a good and actually free/libre OS, that woul…
GPL software is a box that must be kept open, so that everybody would be able to take from it.
If you pick the box and build an altered version of it, you must keep it open, you are legally prohibited from attaching a lid to it.
There's nothing about any expectations, let alone obligations, to put anything back into the original box. Usually it's not very easy (you must follow strict standards) or even impossible (see e.g. SQLite).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being useful and a stochastic parrot are not mutually exclusive. And I in fact think the opposite. it's Necessary to remind people what it really is, especially in this phase of "Enthusiasm" because I see to many people attributing some meaning or some hidden Insight and especially some innate infallibility to AI nowdays, maybe confused by the name AI.
Right, but most arguments, including the one here, go something like "AI is a Stochastic Parrot so it's a lie and now I think it's bad and we shouldn't do it." Which is a pretty dumb position imo. Not that I personally think these newer LLMs are a stochastic parrot, or at least not to the degree proponents of the Stochastic Parrot argument would have you believe.
I think AI is here to stay (obviously) but we do need a much better permission model regarding content, whether this is the writing on your blog, your digital art, your open source code, video, audio...all of it. The current model basically says that as soon as you publish something, others can pretty much do with it as they please under the disguise of "fair use", an aggressive ToS, the like. I stand by the author t…
If that is made mandatory, only then can these lists actually be checked against licenses.
There will also need to be a trial license, to establish whether an AI learning model can be considered derived from a licensed open source project - and therefore whether it falls under the license.
And finally, we'll likely get updated versions of the various OSS licenses that include a specific statement on e.g. usage within AI / machine learning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I agree with this as a general point of view. Speaking generally, I'm not sure that one can claim >> The original authors tend to be the users There are endless forks of say emacs,and I expect RMS is not s user of any of them. Of course RMS is free to inspect the code for all of them, separate out bug fixes from features, and retro apply it to his build. But I'm not seeing anything in any license that re…
It's like everyone here is a lawyer nitpicking the license as it exists today. But absolutely before the licenses existed Open Source was about those principles, to share code, to share bug fixes, to publish any improvements. So everyone would get better. To say the 'license' doesn't make this explicit it really missing the point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, but most arguments, including the one here, go something like "AI is a Stochastic Parrot so it's a lie and now I think it's bad and we shouldn't do it." Which is a pretty dumb position imo. Not that I personally think these newer LLMs are a stochastic parrot, or at least not to the degree proponents of the Stochastic Parrot argument would have you believe.
The argument of Stochastic Parrot is not that we shouldn't do it. It's just "Do not attribute any meaning to it". The one in this article is in the same vane that author thought the AI was learning to program when in reality it was just repeating the most statistically probable combination of the code it had seen. That is, "correctness" is not part of "considerations" that the model does. If the majority of the code…