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

221–230 of 314 posts

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

#221

Post by matheusmoreira »

quotemstr wrote: post #147
bwfan123 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So what? I can probably produce parts of the header from memory. Doesn't mean my brain is GPLed.

> Doesn't mean my brain is GPLed.

It would be if they could get away with it. The likes of Disney would delete your memories of their films if they could get away with it. If you want to enjoy the film, you should have to pay them for the privilege, not recall the last time you watched it.

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

#222

Post by tpmoney »

LtWorf wrote: post #214
tpmoney wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If it is sufficiently transformative yes it does. That’s why “information” per se is not eligible for copyright, no matter what the NFL wants you to think. No printing the entire text of a Harry Potter book in red ink is not likely to be viewed as sufficiently transformative. But if you take the entirety of that book and publish a list of every word and the frequency, it’s extremely unlikely to be found a violation of copyright. If you publish a count of every word with the frequency weighted by what word came before it, you’re also very likely to not be found to have violated copyright. If you distribute the MD5 sum of the file that is a Harry Potter book you’re also not likely to be found to have violated copyright. All of these are “changing how the information is stored”.

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

#223

Post by tpmoney »

sfink wrote: post #185
tpmoney wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you download GPL source code and run `wc` on its files and distribute the output of that, is that a violation of copyright and the GPL? What if you do that for every GPL program on github? What if you use python and numpy and generate a list of every word or symbol used in those programs and how frequently they appear? What if you generate the same frequency data, but also add a weighting by what the previous symb…

The line is somewhere between running wc on the entire input and running gzip on the entire input. The fact that a slippery slope is slippery doesn't make it not a slope.

Of course there is a line. And everything we know about how AI models work points to them being on the ‘wc’ side of the line

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

#224

Post by jay_kyburz »

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…

Reading your comment made me think about the other-side of the equation. I think it's generally considered that AI generated works are not themselves protected by copyright, I wonder if code with little to no human intervention become un-licenable.

You don't have any rights to assert when you have AI write the code for you.

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

#225

Post by Brian_K_White »

themafia wrote: post #195
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 virality is a byproduct to ensure the software is not stolen from their users. If Microsoft misappropriates GPL code how exactly is that "stealing" from me, the user, of that code? I'm not deprived in any way, the author is, so I can't make sense of your premise here. > Freedom of software means nothing. Software is information. Does "freedom of information" mean nothing? I think you're narrowing concepts here…

"If Microsoft misappropriates GPL code how exactly is that "stealing" from me, the user, of that code? I'm not deprived in any way."

Yes you are. You are just deprived of something you apparently don't recognize or value, but that doesn't make it ok.

The original author was also stolen from and that doesn't rely on your understanding or perception.

The original author set some terms. Therm were not money but they are terms exactly like money. They said "you can have this, and only price is you have to make the source, and the further right to redistribute, available to any user you hand a binary to.

Well MS handed you a binary and did not also hand you the source or the right to redistribute.

That stole from both you and the original author and me who might otherwise have benefited from your own child work. The fact that you personally apparently were never going to make use of something they owe you doesn't change the fact that they owe you, and the original author and me.

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

#226

Post by Brian_K_White »

reactordev wrote: post #205
inlined wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a user I suffer from not being able to freely use or derive my own work from Microsoft’s

This. People conflate consumer to user. A user in the sense of GPL is a programmer or technical person whom the software (including source) is intended for. Not necessarily a “user of an app” but a user of this “suite of source code”.

Except really the whole point is it explicitly and actively makes no distinction. Every random user has 100% of the same rights as any developer or vendor.

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

#227

Post by dragonwriter »

LtWorf wrote: post #215
dragonwriter wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

No, almost cerainly it would be practically impossible if you reproduced the entire work, on top of evidence that you had perused it, because it would be very hard to convince a trier of fact that the duplication really was coincidence rather than copying, but it might be a very different story if you had read Harry Potter and then wrote another work that includes the text “Up!” she screeched. (which appears verbatim in the first volume of the series.)

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

#228

Post by joegibbs »

redox99 wrote: post #216
cardanome wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I agree, back before LLMs I would be so tired at the end of the day and it would take forever, typing out tedious stuff that I've done before but slightly differently - making a form for some thing or a page that displays something else. Now I can just go and tell it to make me a new page in the style of the last one that displays XYZ information instead and it makes it in 20 seconds. Tell it to implement this algorithm for this data and it does it. It's great, it feels like going up a level in abstraction and just thinking about the bigger picture.

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

#229

Post by em-bee »

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 the generation is independent of the existing code

well, that's the big question, isn't it? if the code is used for training AI and the AI reproduces the same code, is that really independent?

i don't think so.

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

if the code is the same, how do you prove it's not a copy?

it's the same problem as with plagiarism, isn't it?

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

#230

Post by joegibbs »

scotty79 wrote: post #44
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.

We need a ruling that LLM generated code enters public domain automatically and can't be covered by any license.

That wouldn't matter too much though - how often do you worry about competitors directly stealing your code? Either it's server-side, or it's obfuscated or it's compiled. Anyway there's never that much stuff that's so special that it needs big legal stuff to prevent it from being copied, and if the LLM produces it you can just use another LLM to copy the same feature. And say it's 99% LLM and 1% human, who's going to know what the 1% is that's not safe to copy?
Post reply on HN