The folks at https://malus.sh seem to think it's fine.
Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite
261–270 of 408 posts
Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite
#262Man, licensing is funny in the modern day. I sometimes wonder, what would world look like if there was no copyright
Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite
#263The maintainer used the original test suite in the rewrite.
Does that make the new code a derivative of the original test suite (also lpgl)?
Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite
#264The maintainer's response: https://github.com/chardet/chardet/issues/327#issuecomment-4... The second part here is problematic, but fascinating: "I then started in an empty repository with no access to the old source tree, and explicitly instructed Claude not to base anything on LGPL/GPL-licensed code." Problem - Claude almost certainly was trained on the LGPL/GPL original code. It knows that is how to solve the prob…
The difference in indemnification based on which plan you’re on is super important. Thanks for pointing that out - never would have thought to look.
Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is true that if two people happen to independently create the same thing, they each have their own copyright. It is also true that in all the cases that I know about where that has occurred the courts have taken a very, very, very close look at the situation and taken extensive evidence to convince the court that there really wasn't any copying. It was anything but a "get out of jail free" card; it in fact was dif…
That's the "but their case would still fail if the second author could show that their work was independent, no matter how improbable" part of the post you're responding to.
One out of ten to the power of "forget about it" is not improbable, it's impossible.
I know it's a popular misconception that "impossible" = a strict, statistical, mathematical 0, but if you try to use that in real life it turns out to be pretty useless. It also tends to bother people that there isn't a bright shining line between "possible" and "impossible" like there is between "0 and strictly not 0", but all you can really do is deal with it. Where ever the line is, this is literally millions of orders of magnitude on the wrong side of it. Not a factor of millions, a factor of ten to the millions. It's not possible to "accidentally" duplicate a work of that size.
Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm no longer certain what point you're trying to make. Getting close less than half the time given three paragraphs as input still sounds like red-handed copyright infringement to me. If I sample a copyrighted song in my new track, clip it, slow it down, and decimate the bit rate, a court would not let me off the hook. It doesn't matter how much context you push into these things. If I feed them 50% of Moby Dick and…
That's... not how this works. > If I feed them 50% of Moby Dick and they produce the next word and I can repeatedly do that to produce the entire book... then we can prove the statistical model encodes the book. It can't because it doesn't. That's what it means to say it diverges. The "number of attempts" is you cheating. You're giving it the book when you let it try again word by word until it gets the correct answe…
The point is that the AI's themselves and their backers are on the record as saying that the AI could reproduce copyrighted works in their entirety but that there are countermeasures in place to stop them from doing so.
I wonder what the results would be if I spent time to train a model up from scratch without any such constraints. But I'm much too busy with other stuff right now, but that would be an interesting challenge.
Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you’d lose all rights on pictures of yourselves if they were generated by AI? Would this be true even for nudes?
Copyright and privacy rights are different.
I did not refer to privacy rights. If you post a photo of yourselves online, you're giving up on a tiny part of your privacy rights. So my question still stands: would running your photos that you have taken of yourselves through a diffusion model rip your copyright of your photo?
Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's... not how this works. > If I feed them 50% of Moby Dick and they produce the next word and I can repeatedly do that to produce the entire book... then we can prove the statistical model encodes the book. It can't because it doesn't. That's what it means to say it diverges. The "number of attempts" is you cheating. You're giving it the book when you let it try again word by word until it gets the correct answe…
The point is that the AI's themselves and their backers are on the record as saying that the AI could reproduce copyrighted works in their entirety but that there are countermeasures in place to stop them from doing so. I wonder what the results would be if I spent time to train a model up from scratch without any such constraints. But I'm much too busy with other stuff right now, but that would be an interesting cha…
Yeah just like a star could appear inside of Earth from quantum pair production at any given moment. But realistically, it can't. And you can't even show a test where any model can get more than a few tokens in a row correct.
These companies just don't want to deal with people complaining that it reproduces something when they don't understand that they're literally giving it the answer.
Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite
#269> Accepting AI-rewriting as relicensing could spell the end of Copyleft The more restrictive licences perhaps, though only if the rewriter convinces everyone that they can properly maintain the result. For ancient projects that aren't actively maintained anyway (because they are essentially done at this point) this might make little difference, but for active projects any new features and fixes might result in either…
This is super interesting. Exploring the basis for Free Software (the 4 liberties, Richard Stallman)... if AI-code is effectively under Public Domain, wouldn't that actually be even MORE defensive than relying on copyright to be able to generate copyleft? Wouldn't the rewrite of code (previously under any license, and maybe even unknown to the LLM) constitute a massive win for the population in general, because now t…
Many copyleft licences give more rights to the user of the software than being public domain would.
A bit of public domain code can be used in a hidden way in perpetuity.
A bit of code covered by AGPL3 (for instance) (and other GPLs depending on context) can be used for free too, but with the extra requirement that users be given a copy of the code, and derivative works, upon request.
This is why the corps like MIT and similar and won't touch anything remotely like GPL (even LGPL which only covers derivative works of the library not the wider project). The MIT licence can be largely treated as public domain.
Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not agree with your interpretation of copyright law. It does ban copies : there has to be information flow from the original to the copy for it to be a "copy." Spontaneous generation of the same content is often taken by the courts to be a sign that it's purely functional, derived from requirements by mathematical laws. Patent law is different and doesn't rely on information flow in the same way.
Derivative works can also run afoul of copyright. An LLM trained on a corpus of copyrighted code is creating derivative works no matter how obscure the process is.
Judge Alsup --
U.S. District Judge William Alsup said Anthropic made "fair use" of books, deeming it "exceedingly transformative."
"Like any reader aspiring to be a writer, Anthropic's LLMs trained upon works not to race ahead and replicate or supplant them — but to turn a hard corner and create something different"