This is such scummy behavior.
Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite
101–110 of 408 posts
Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would go so far as to say the most restrictive license that the model is trained on should be applied to all model generated code. That license is called "All Rights Reserved", in which case you wouldn't be able to legally use the output for anything. There are research models out there which are trained on only permissively licensed data (i.e. no "All Rights Reserved" data), but they're, colloquially speaking, d…
I agree with your assessment. Which is why I was proposing a middle-ground where an agreement is setup between the model training company and the collective of developers/artists et all and come up with a license agreement where they are rewarded for their original work for perpetuity. A tiny % of the profits can be shared, which would be a form of UBI. This is fair not only because companies are using AI generated o…
Why settle on some private agreement between creators and ai companies where a tiny percentage is shared, let's just tax the hell out of AI companies and redistribute.
Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite
#103By design you can't know if the LLM doing the rewrite was exposed to the original code base. Unless the AI company is disclosing their training material, which they won't because they don't want to admit breaking the law.
> By design you can't know if the LLM doing the rewrite was exposed to the original code base.
I agree, in theory. In practice courts will request that the decision-making process will be made public. The "we don't know" excuse won't hold; real people also need to tell the truth in court. LLMs may not lie to the court or use the chewbacca defence.
Also, I am pretty certain you CAN have AI models that explain how they originated to the decision-making process. And they can generate valid code too, so anything can be autogenerated here - in theory.
Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite
#104Isn't AFC test applicable here?
Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite
#105By design you can't know if the LLM doing the rewrite was exposed to the original code base. Unless the AI company is disclosing their training material, which they won't because they don't want to admit breaking the law.
Seeing the source for a project doesn't prevent me from ever creating a similar project, just because I've seen the code. The devil is in the details.
Agreed, but the courts can conclude that all LLMs who are not open about their decision, have stolen things. So LLMs would auto-lose in court.
Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite
#106By design you can't know if the LLM doing the rewrite was exposed to the original code base. Unless the AI company is disclosing their training material, which they won't because they don't want to admit breaking the law.
it was exposed when it was shown the thing to rewrite.
In this context here I think that is a correct statement. But I think you can have LLMs that can generate the same or similar code, without having been exposed to the other code.
Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't even matter if the LLM was exposed during training. A clean-room rewrite can be done by having one LLM create a highly detailed analysis of the target (reverse engineering if it's in binary form), and providing that analysis to another LLM to base an implementation.
Why does it need 2 LLMs? LLMs aren't people. I'm not even sure that it needs to be done in 2 seperate contexts
Agreed. But even then I don't see the problem. Multiple LLMs could work on the same project.
Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite
#108> The ownership void: If the code is truly a “new” work created by a machine, it might technically be in the public domain the moment it’s generated, rendering the MIT license moot. Im struggling to see where this conclusion came from. To me it sounds like the AI-written work can not be coppywritten, and so its kind of like a copy pasting the original code. Copy pasting the original code doesnt make it public domain.…
AI written absolutely is copyrightable. There are just some unresolved tensions around where the lines are and how much and what kind of involvement humans need to have in the process.
Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite
#109This has the potential to kill open source, or at least the most restrictive licenses (GPL, AGPL, ...): if a license no longer protects software from unwanted use, the only possible strategy is to make the development closed source.
I find the wording "protect from unwanted use" interesting. It is my understanding that what a GPL license requires is releasing the source code of modifications. So if we assume that a rewrite using AI retains the GPL license, it only means the rewrite needs to be open source under the GPL too. It doesn't prevent any unwanted use, or at least that is my understanding. I guess unwanted use in this case could mean not…
If the AI product is recognised as "derivative work" of a GPL-compliant project, then it must itself be licensed under the GPL. Otherwise, it can be licensed under any other license (including closed source/proprietary binary licenses). This last option is what threatens to kill open source: an author no longer has control over their project. This might work for permissive licenses, but for GPL/AGPL and similar licenses, it's precisely the main reason they exist: to prevent the code from being taken, modified, and treated as closed source (including possible use as part of commercial products or Sass).
Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite
#110This seems relevant: "No right to relicense this project (github.com/chardet)" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47259177
That's another project though, right? In this case I think it is different because that project just seems stolen. The courts can probably verify this too. I think the main question is when a rewrite is a clean rewrite, via AI. If it is a clean rewrite they can choose any licence.
No, TFA is about chardet too:
> chardet , a Python character encoding detector used by requests and many others, has sat in that tension for years: as a port of Mozilla’s C++ code it was bound to the LGPL, making it a gray area for corporate users and a headache for its most famous consumer.