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

211–220 of 314 posts

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

#211

Post by LexiMax »

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.

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

#212

Post by LtWorf »

pessimizer wrote: post #48
dmezzetti wrote: post #18

[flagged]

As somebody who thinks that people currently own the code that they write, I wonder why you're in people's business who want to write GPL'd software. Are you complaining about proprietary software? I hear the restrictions are a lot tighter for Photoshop's source code, or iOS's, but for some reason you are one of the people who hate GPL as a hobby. Please don't show up whining about "spirits" when Amazon puts you out…

I opened the profile of the user and he's a founder of an AI company. I guess that explains.

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

#213

Post by dragonwriter »

em-bee wrote: post #208
raincole wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, pure AI-generated code is uncopyrightable now. Uncopyrightable code can't be under GPL. Secondly, GPL can't "make your (proprietary) code disappear." Violating GPL is essentially just stealing code. One cannot distribute the version that includes stolen code. But they can remove the stolen part and replace it with their own code. Of course they still need to settle/pay for the previous infringement. GPL…

First of all, pure AI-generated code is uncopyrightable now. Uncopyrightable code can't be under GPL. if AI generates something that is equal to existing code, then the license of that code applies. the AI generated product as a whole can't be copyrighted, but the portions that reproduce copyrighted code retain the original copyright. they can remove the stolen part and replace it with their own code sure, if they ca…

> if AI generates something that is equal to existing code, then the license of that code applies.

No, it doesn't, if the generation is independent of the existing code. If a person using AI uses existing code and makes a literal copy of it, then, yes, the copyright (and any license offer applicable in the circumstances) of the existing code may apply (it may also not, the same as with copies of portions of code made by other means), and it's less than clear if (especially for small portions of code) that legally such a copy has been made when a work is in the training set.

Copyright protects against copying. It doesn't protect against someone creating the same content by means other than copying.

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

#214

Post by LtWorf »

tpmoney wrote: post #168
LtWorf wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But training an AI on a text is not running it.

And distributing an AI model trained on that text is neither distributing the work nor a modification of the work, so the GPL (or other) license terms don't apply. As it stands, the courts have found training an AI model to be a sufficiently transformative action and fair use which means the resulting output of that training is not a "copy" for the terms of copyright law.

> And distributing an AI model trained on that text is neither distributing the work nor a modification of the work, so the GPL (or other) license terms don't apply.

If I print an harry potter book in red ink then I won't have any copyright issues?

I don't think changing how the information is stored removes copyright.

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

#215

Post by LtWorf »

dragonwriter wrote: post #213
em-bee wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, pure AI-generated code is uncopyrightable now. Uncopyrightable code can't be under GPL. if AI generates something that is equal to existing code, then the license of that code applies. the AI generated product as a whole can't be copyrighted, but the portions that reproduce copyrighted code retain the original copyright. they can remove the stolen part and replace it with their own code sure, if they ca…

> if AI generates something that is equal to existing code, then the license of that code applies. No, it doesn't, if the generation is independent of the existing code. If a person using AI uses existing code and makes a literal copy of it , then, yes, the copyright (and any license offer applicable in the circumstances) of the existing code may apply (it may also not, the same as with copies of portions of code mad…

If I read harry potter and randomly rewrite it you think I have a chance against Rowling?

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

#216

Post by redox99 »

cardanome wrote: post #193
myrmidon wrote: post #33

I honestly think that the most extreme take that " any output of an LLM falls under all the copyright of all its training data" is not really defensible, especially when contrasted with human learning, and would be curious to hear conflicting opinions. My view is that copyright in general is a pretty abstract and artificial concept; thus corresponding regulation needs to justifiy itself by being useful , i.e. encoura…

> I view AI overlap under the same lense-- if current copyright rules would lead to undesirable outcomes (by making all AI training or use illegal/infeasible) then law/interpretation simply has to be changed Not sure about undesirable, I so wish we could just ban all generative AI. I feel profound sadness of having lost the world we had before generative AI became widespread. I really loved programming and seeing my…

In my opinion programming has never been this much fun. The vast vast majority of code is repetitive stuff that now is a breeze. I can build so much stuff now, and with more beautiful code because refactoring is effortless.

I think it's like going from pre industrial revolution manual labor, to modern tools and machines.

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

#217

Post by dzaima »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #146
Orygin wrote: post #74

Great article but I don't really agree with their take on GPL regarding this paragraph: > The spirit of the GPL is to promote the free sharing and development of software [...] the reality is that they are proceeding in a different vector from the direction of code sharing idealized by GPL. If only the theory of GPL propagation to models walks alone, in reality, only data exclusion and closing off to avoid litigation…

The GPL arose from Stallman's frustration at not having access to the source code for a printer driver that was causing him grief. In a world where he could have just said "Please create a PDP-whatever driver for an IBM-whatever printer," there never would have been a GPL. In that sense AI represents the fulfillment of his vision, not a refutation or violation. I'd be surprised if he saw it that way, of course.

In said hypothetical world, though, the whatever-driver would also have been written by LLMs; and, if the printer or whatever is non-trivial and made by a typical large company, many LLM instances with a sizable amount of token spending over a long period of time.

So getting your own LLM rewrite to an equivalent point (or, rather, less buggy as that's the whole point!) would be rather expensive; at the absolute very least, certainly more expensive than if you still had the original source code to reference or modify (even if an LLM is the thing doing those). Having the original source code is still just strictly unconditionally better.

Never mind the question of how you even get your LLM to reverse-engineer & interact with & observe the physical hardware of your printer, and whatever wasted ink during debugging of the reinvention of what the original driver already did correctly.

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

#218

Post by dmezzetti »

LtWorf wrote: post #210
dmezzetti wrote: post #18

[flagged]

> As someone who has spent a fair amount of time developing open source software, I will say I genuinely dislike copyleft and GPL. GPL: Help the user MIT: Help some random company screw the users and save money not hiring people. Then again I see you're a founder at some AI company so I strongly doubt your motives and statement.

I've spent years building something for free with no expectation of anything in return. Perhaps someone just doesn't believe in the GPL and has no ulterior motive for that.

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

#219

Post by bluefirebrand »

munchler wrote: post #62
phplovesong wrote: post #25

We need a new license that forbids all training. That is the only way to stop big corporations from doing this.

By that logic, humans would also be prevented from “training” on (i.e. learning from) such code. Hard to see how this could be a valid license.

There is absolutely no reason that LLMs (or Corporations) should have the same rights as humans

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

#220

Post by dzaima »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #187
saurik wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that isn't the same code that you were running before. And like, let's not forget GPLv3: "please give me the code for a mobile OS that could run on an iPhone" does not in any way help me modify the code running on MY iPhone.

Sure it does. Just tell the model to change whatever you want changed. You won't need access to the high-level code, any more than you need access to the CPU's microcode now. We're a few years away from that, but it will happen unless someone powerful blocks it.

I believe the point was that iPhones don't even allow running custom code even if you have the code; whereas GPLv3 mandates that any conveyed form of a work must be replacable by the user. So unless LLMs easily spit out an infinite stream of 0days to exploit to circumvent that, they won't help here.
Post reply on HN