Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite

tuananh.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 408 posts

Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite

#391

Post by Orygin »

tzs wrote: post #330
Orygin wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Commits clearly show in progress where both LGPL and MIT code was working together. This clearly show they are a derivative work and MUST follow the original license. Plus the argument put forth is that they can re-license the project. It's not a new one made from scratch.

Did they eventually remove/replace all the LGPL code?

No because the "new" code is LGPL too since they developped it as a derivative work of the original. They cannot license it MIT as it is LPGL.

Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite

#392

Post by nkmnz »

DrammBA wrote: post #289
nkmnz wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, anything AI-generated should be public domain including the AI-generated picture that used your photo as input.

So we have two positions here: 1) LLMs are trained on non-licensed information, so anything coming out of them must be created without a license, so no one should be allowed to use it. 2) LKMs are trained on public information, so everything coming out of the must be public domain.

These two positions are mutually exclusive and I feel that both are not entirely false, but also certainly not fully correct.

Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite

#393

Post by nkmnz »

DrammBA wrote: post #289
nkmnz wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, anything AI-generated should be public domain including the AI-generated picture that used your photo as input.

Is this true once you use a fancy filter of the photo app of your choice? Is this true once your phone applies such a filter without asking you? Should this be true for Theseus‘ Ship?

Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite

#394

Post by Vegenoid »

jerf wrote: post #246

"Accepting AI-rewriting as relicensing could spell the end of Copyleft" True, but too weak. It ends copyright entirely. If I can do this to a code base, I can do it to a movie, to an album, to a novel, to anything. As such, we can rest assured that for better or for worse this is going to be resolved in favor of this not being enough to strip the copyright off of something and the chardet/chardet project would be wel…

No, because the function of code is distinct from the implementation of the code. With software, something that is functionally identical can be created with a different underlying implementation. This is not the case with media.

Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite

#395

Post by 0x457 »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #378
0x457 wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that an LLM was able to reproduce the verbatim text of the first 4 Harry Potter books with 96% accuracy. Kinda weird argument, in their research ( https://forum.gnoppix.org/t/researchers-extract-up-to-96-of-... ) LLM was explicitly asked to reproduce the book. There are people that can do so without LLMs out there, by this logic everything they write is a copyright infringement an every book they can reproduce. > Y…

I guess the text of Harry Potter was used as training material as one big chunk. That would be a copyright violation.

This is where I disagree. Copyright was most likely violated, but (most likely) because book was obtained not via a legal way.

LLMs didn't spit out Harry Potter until it was prompted to do so. There is argument to be make that LLM can be used as transport of pirated content.

My argument is that it's not different from searching for "file:pdf Harry Potter"

Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite

#396

Post by Lerc »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #350
Lerc wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a paper that proposed a content based hashing mask for traning The idea is you have some window size, maybe 32 tokens. Hash it into a seed for a pseudo random number generator. Generate random numbers in the range 0..1 for each token in the window. Compare this number against a threshold. Don't count the loss for any tokens with a rng value higher than the threshold. It learns well enough because you get th…

> you get the gist of reading the meaning of something when the occasional word is missing, I think it's more subtle than that. IIUC the tokens were all present for the purpose of computing the output and the score is based on the output. It's only the weight update where some of the tokens get ignored. So the learning is lossy but the inference driving the learning is not. Rather than a book that's missing words it'…

Yeah, it's a bit hard to describe what it happening, because the process doesn't really have a human analogue.

People have a difficult enough time dealing with how loss reduction learning is or isn't 'seeing' the data. Selectively removing things from the loss while sill feeding it all the data takes the non-intuitive situation one layer deeper.

That's partially why I described the hash & masking process. I understand it from a formulaic approach but I don't really feel like I have have a good handle of what is happening semantically. It's like thinking in 5D, you can do the calculations but it still feels like your brain is not equipped to deal with what it means.

Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite

#397

Post by CrazyStat »

galaxyLogic wrote: post #389
CrazyStat wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AI might give them good reasons for pros and cons. This is what lawyers do, in their briefs and oral arguments before the court.

True. But if I was a judge I might want to consult AI to get a "neutral" opinion.

AI "neutrality" is a mirage. Hopefully the Supreme Court justices are smart enough to know that.

Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite

#398

Post by ValentineC »

hamdingers wrote: post #336
satvikpendem wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, good. Copyright and IP law in general have been so twisted by corporations that only they benefit now, see Mickey Mouse laws by Disney for example, or patenting obvious things like Nintendo or even just patent trolling in general.

The biggest recording artist in the world right now had to re-record her early albums because she didn't own the copyright, imagine how many artists don't get that big and never have that opportunity. That individual artists are still defending this system is baffling to me.

> The biggest recording artist in the world right now had to re-record her early albums because she didn't own the copyright, imagine how many artists don't get that big and never have that opportunity.

Not only that, but Taylor Swift only could do so because she wrote the songs herself, and therefore had the composition copyright to her songs.

Most artists that were put together by the label don't have such a luxury.

Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite

#399

Post by pornel »

Majromax wrote: post #327
leecommamichael wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Changing the equation” by boldly breaking the law.

> “Changing the equation” by boldly breaking the law. Is it? I think the law is truly undeveloped when it comes to language models and their output. As a purely human example, suppose I once long ago read through the source code of GCC. Does this mean that every compiler I write henceforth must be GPL-licensed, even if the code looks nothing like GCC code? There's obviously some sliding scale. If I happen to commit l…

Laws don't have to treat humans and machines equally. They can be "unfairly" biased for humans.

People have needs like "freedom of artistic expression" that we don't need to grant to machines.

Machines can operate at speeds and scales way beyond human abilities, so they can potentially create much more damage.

We can ban air pollution from machines without making it illegal to fart.

Re: Relicensing with AI-Assisted Rewrite

#400

Post by galaxyLogic »

0x457 wrote: post #395
galaxyLogic wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the text of Harry Potter was used as training material as one big chunk. That would be a copyright violation.

This is where I disagree. Copyright was most likely violated, but (most likely) because book was obtained not via a legal way. LLMs didn't spit out Harry Potter until it was prompted to do so. There is argument to be make that LLM can be used as transport of pirated content. My argument is that it's not different from searching for "file:pdf Harry Potter"

I see your point but it also seems clear to me that somebody violated copyright, most likely the people or company that trained the AI.
Post reply on HN