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

Google warns its own employees: Do not use code generated by Bard

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–166 of 166 posts

Re: Google warns its own employees: Do not use code generated by Bard

#161

Post by cyanydeez »

tiedieconderoga wrote: post #141
buro9 wrote: post #21

This is Google, who have a monorepo, who are afraid of the legal risks to the monorepo. The copyright of the output of these tools is not yet determined, it's a risk. The advice not to use the tools in a risky way not only directly mitigates the risk but like an "employees must wash hands" sign in a restaurant restroom, it can be seen as a reasonable step that transfers some of the liability to the staff member. It's…

Could it also be a reflection of Google's lawyers advising that using LLMs trained on masses of unvetted source-available code is probably tantamount to copyright laundering?

Is openais business model reliant on copyright laundering?

Re: Google warns its own employees: Do not use code generated by Bard

#162

Post by DoughnutHole »

cyanydeez wrote: post #161
tiedieconderoga wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could it also be a reflection of Google's lawyers advising that using LLMs trained on masses of unvetted source-available code is probably tantamount to copyright laundering?

Is openais business model reliant on copyright laundering?

Undeniably, yes.

Re: Google warns its own employees: Do not use code generated by Bard

#163

Post by sidewndr46 »

soultrees wrote: post #157
sidewndr46 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems absurdly reductionist to me. Wouldn't all work simply be attributable to the first proto-human who grabbed a stick or rock and used it as a tool? Surely even proto-humans communicated knowledge by demonstrations amongst themselves, even if they lacked complicated language.

Humans are just a collection of experiences that are using past data to make future assumptions. So yes, thank you Mr. Caveman because of your ingenuity of using a rock and a stick to create a hammer, we now have a full modern society built off the back of tools. But that seems ridiculous doesn’t it? So at what point do we stop attributing the previous innovations that led to our current innovations? And why do we st…

If you can dream up a society that doesn't need money, yes we can do away with copyright.

Re: Google warns its own employees: Do not use code generated by Bard

#164

Post by Aerroon »

wccrawford wrote: post #90
Aerroon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, so the US copyright office considers the AI model to be the sole creator of the work? So the prompt - the actual intent behind the use of the tool - is irrelevant? Then where is the line? If I use a painting program that runs a Math.random() on a brush and I use this brush to draw something then is that also created by a non-human? If I program a robot arm to draw a picture then is that picture also created by…

I read it that a program/computer/robot cannot hold copyright. If someone uses AI to generate art, the AI doesn't hold the copyright. (Notice it doesn't say anything about the user.) Likewise, if Photoshop is used to create art, Photoshop doesn't hold the copyright. It's a tool, not a conscious being with rights.

That does make sense!

Re: Google warns its own employees: Do not use code generated by Bard

#165

Post by ineedasername »

pgeorgi wrote: post #139
ineedasername wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And google is nonetheless happy to have countless other coders use their experiment, just not their own. Leave other LLMs to the side on this issue. There are a variety of different issue that arise when Google employees might use a non-Google LLM, so that prohibition is in a category with different reasons.

> And google is nonetheless happy to have countless other coders use their experiment, just not their own. What makes you think so? Those LLMs aren't primarily coding tools. > Leave other LLMs to the side on this issue https://www.reuters.com/technology/google-one-ais-biggest-ba... indicates that the ban is about "all LLMs, period". It's ElReg who, true to their style, decided to focus the discussion on Google employ…

>aren't primarily coding tools.

It doesn't have to be a primary use case for it to be one of the use cases Google is putting forward. In which case Google is still saying they're unwilling to use their own tools in the way put forward for others to do so.

Re: Google warns its own employees: Do not use code generated by Bard

#166

Post by wernercd »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #18
visarga wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you make art combining generative AI with manual work, you get copyright over the exact portions of a work you made yourself. You have to indicate which parts. The parts generated by AI are not copyrightable.

You missed the question.

Further reading seems to indicate human control is pivotal in the equation. A human can be granted copyright for created works but the creative part must be human and not machine.

Just like you don't grant copyright on a PDF to Adobe Photoshop... you grant it to the human who guided the program. Photoshop is a tool and the human is the creator.

https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/16/ai_art_copyright_usco...

> "For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the 'traditional elements of authorship' are determined and executed by the technology – not the human user.

> "Instead, these prompts function more like instructions to a commissioned artist – they identify what the prompter wishes to have depicted, but the machine determines how those instructions are implemented in its output."

> "The USCO will consider content created using AI if a human author has crafted something beyond the machine's direct output. A digital artwork that was formed from a prompt, and then edited further using Photoshop, for example, is more likely to be accepted by the office. The initial image created using AI would not be copyrightable, but the final product produced by the artist might be."

Post reply on HN