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

The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

shujisado.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 314 posts

Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

#121

Post by blibble »

palata wrote: post #67

Genuine question: if I train my model with copyleft material, how do you prove I did? Like if there is no way to trace it back to the original material, does it make sense to regulate it? Not that I like the idea, just wondering. I have been thinking for a while that LLMs are copyright-laundering machines, and I am not sure if there is anything we can do about it other than accepting that it fundamentally changes wha…

> Genuine question: if I train my model with copyleft material, how do you prove I did?

discovery via lawyers

Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

#122

Post by WithinReason »

mixedbit wrote: post #116
WithinReason wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is pretty much what LLMs are doing I think this is the part where we disagree. Have you used LLMs, or is this based on something you read?

Do you honestly believe there are people on this board who haven't used LLMs? Ridiculing someone you disagree with is a poor way to make an argument.

lots of people on this board are philosophically opposed to them so it was a reasonable question, especially in light of your description of them

Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

#123

Post by bwfan123 »

palata wrote: post #67

Genuine question: if I train my model with copyleft material, how do you prove I did? Like if there is no way to trace it back to the original material, does it make sense to regulate it? Not that I like the idea, just wondering. I have been thinking for a while that LLMs are copyright-laundering machines, and I am not sure if there is anything we can do about it other than accepting that it fundamentally changes wha…

Sometime, LLMs actually generate copyright headers as well in their output - lol - like in this PR which was the subject of a recent HN post [1]

https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/pull/14369/files#diff-062dbbe...

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46039274

Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

#124

Post by pclmulqdq »

iso1631 wrote: post #100
pclmulqdq wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the GPL. I just don't know how much you can actually enforce it. Also, "don't use my code" is not viral. If you break the MSFT license, you pay them, which is a very well-tested path in courts. The idea of forced public disclosure does not seem to be.

How much do you pay them? If the GPL license didn't exist, and instead you just relying on copyright, then that's an injunction. You have to stop using the code you "stole" and pay reparations. In UK law, if you distribute copyright material in the course of a business you can be facing 10 years in prison and an unlimited fine. Sure you can't get them to agree to the GPL, they could simply stop distributing and then…

You pay them an amount determined by the court or your settlement, and you also have to stop using the code. This is how everything works.

Corporations can't go to prison.

Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

#125

Post by pclmulqdq »

omnicognate wrote: post #65
pclmulqdq wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That case has little to do with the license itself and nothing to do with its virality.

As I said, that was merely the first of many. And there is no such thing as "virality" - see my answer to the sibling to your comment. The "enforceability" of the GPL was never in any doubt because it's not a contract and doesn't need to be "enforced". The license grants you freedoms you otherwise may not have under copyright. It doesn't deny you any freedoms you would otherwise have, and it cannot do so because it i…

Look at the "many" if you want to cite better cases about this.

Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

#126

Post by sidewndr46 »

jeremyjh wrote: post #63
twoodfin wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ideally, Congress would just settle this basket of copyright concerns, as they explicitly have the power to do—and have done so repeatedly in the specific context of computers and software.

What is ideal about getting more shitty laws written at the behest of massive tech companies? Do you think the DMCA is a good thing?

DMCA isn't intrinsically copyright. It's a questionable attempt at a safe harbor provision that has horrible provisions for abuse. I'm not even of the opinion that copyright about computer software is poorly executed. It's mostly software patents that don't make any sense to me. When you have a concept that essentially every mathematics undergrad is familiar with getting labels slapped on it & called a novel technique. It's made worse by the fact that the patent office itself isn't enabled to perform any real review. There are no shortage of impossible devices patented each year in the category of things perpetual motion.

Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

#127

Post by omnicognate »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #125
omnicognate wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said, that was merely the first of many. And there is no such thing as "virality" - see my answer to the sibling to your comment. The "enforceability" of the GPL was never in any doubt because it's not a contract and doesn't need to be "enforced". The license grants you freedoms you otherwise may not have under copyright. It doesn't deny you any freedoms you would otherwise have, and it cannot do so because it i…

Look at the "many" if you want to cite better cases about this.

I've cited further cases elsewhere in this thread. If you'd like to test this yourself feel free to repackage some GPL software as closed source, flog it to people and see what happens. I'm not your lawyer.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46070191

Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

#128

Post by isodev »

palata wrote: post #67

Genuine question: if I train my model with copyleft material, how do you prove I did? Like if there is no way to trace it back to the original material, does it make sense to regulate it? Not that I like the idea, just wondering. I have been thinking for a while that LLMs are copyright-laundering machines, and I am not sure if there is anything we can do about it other than accepting that it fundamentally changes wha…

> Genuine question: if I train my model with copyleft material, how do you prove I did?

The burden is on you to prove that you didn't.

Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

#129

Post by isodev »

friendzis wrote: post #106
palata wrote: post #67

Genuine question: if I train my model with copyleft material, how do you prove I did? Like if there is no way to trace it back to the original material, does it make sense to regulate it? Not that I like the idea, just wondering. I have been thinking for a while that LLMs are copyright-laundering machines, and I am not sure if there is anything we can do about it other than accepting that it fundamentally changes wha…

> Genuine question: if I train my model with copyleft material, how do you prove I did? An inverse of this question is arguably even more relevant: how do you prove that the output of your model is not copyrighted (or otherwise encumbered) material? In other words, even if your model was trained strictly on copyleft material, but properly prompted outputs a copyrighted work is it copyright infringement and if so by w…

> even if your model was trained strictly on copyleft material

That's not legal use of the material according to most copyleft licenses. Regardless if you end up trying to reproduce it. It's also quite immoral if technically-strictly-speaking-maybe-not-unlawful.

Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

#130

Post by palata »

isodev wrote: post #128
palata wrote: post #67

Genuine question: if I train my model with copyleft material, how do you prove I did? Like if there is no way to trace it back to the original material, does it make sense to regulate it? Not that I like the idea, just wondering. I have been thinking for a while that LLMs are copyright-laundering machines, and I am not sure if there is anything we can do about it other than accepting that it fundamentally changes wha…

> Genuine question: if I train my model with copyleft material, how do you prove I did? The burden is on you to prove that you didn't.

No it is not. It is exactly how the burden of proof works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)

Post reply on HN