171–180 of 314 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not dictating how you use what you build? It's dictating how you redistribute what you build on top of other people's work.
Ok but I just have no interest in imposing restrictions on how people distribute what I build in such a manner either. That's just me.
Training is not redistribution. It's the exact same as you as a person learning to program from proprietary secret code, and then writing your own original code independently. Even if you repeat patterns and methods you've picked up from that proprietary learning material, it is by no means redistribution. The practical differentiator here is that you do not access the proprietary material during the creation of your…
so basically we download the sources files to the training weight and remove the LICENSE.MD as it's exactly the same as a person learning to program from proprietay secret code and outputing code based on that for millions of peoples in matter of seconds /s we also treat as however we want public goods found over the internet. as the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty and Berne Convention for t…
[flagged]
https://gavinhoward.com/2023/12/is-source-available-really-t...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a stupid presupposition that LLMs are equivalent to human brains which they clearly are not. Stateless token generators are OBVIOUSLY not like human brains even if you somehow contort the definition of intelligence to include them
Even if they are not "like" human brains in some sense, are they "like" brains enough to be counted similarly in a legal environment? Can you articulate the difference as something other than meat parochialism, which strikes me as arbitrary?
Famously, the output from monkey "artists" was found to be non-copyrightable even though a monkey's brain is much more similar to ours than an LLM.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if they are not "like" human brains in some sense, are they "like" brains enough to be counted similarly in a legal environment? Can you articulate the difference as something other than meat parochialism, which strikes me as arbitrary?
All law is arbitrary. Intellectual property law perhaps most of all. Famously, the output from monkey "artists" was found to be non-copyrightable even though a monkey's brain is much more similar to ours than an LLM. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...
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.
We need a new license that forbids all training. That is the only way to stop big corporations from doing this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The spirit of the GPL is the freedom of the user, not the code being freely shared. who do you mean by "user"? the spirit is that the person who actually uses the software also has the freedom to modify it, and that the users recovering these modifications have the same rights. is that what you meant? and while technically that's the spirit of the GPL, the license is not only about users, but about a _relationship_…
I don't think you understand the GPL. > "the user is allowed to do with the software" The GPL does not restrict what the user does with the software. It can be USED for anything. But it does restrict how you redistribute it. You have responsibilities if you redistribute it. You must provide the source code, and pass on the same freedoms you received to the users you redistribute it to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Virality is a very good feature of GPL and part of what makes it a meaningfully different choice than other open licenses, I don't know why you want attribute that to Microsoft of all places.
A key pillar of Microsoft's FUD campaign against open source was that if you use GPL software you run the risk of inadvertantly including some of it in your proprietary software and accidentally causing the whole thing to suddenly become open source against your horrified company's wishes. It was a lie then and it's a lie now. The comment I was replying to (along with many others on this post) indicates the brainworm…
I do miss groklaw, been far too long for something like that to appear again.
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…
Human learning is materially different from LLM training. They're similar in that both involve providing input to a system that can, afterwards, produce output sharing certain statistical regularities with the input, including rote recital in some cases – but the similarities end there.
Specifically what "material differences" are there? The only arguments I heard are are around human exceptionalism (eg. "brains are different, because... they just are ok?"), or giving humans a pass because they're not evil corporations.