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

Generative AI profits off your code. Make them pay for it

paytotrain.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: Generative AI profits off your code. Make them pay for it

#41

Post by yummypaint »

carom wrote: post #19
echelon wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It shouldn't even hinge on a TOS. If Microsoft loses this case, it actually means Microsoft wins and we all lose. Who has a large enough corpora of training data? Only institutional copyright holders. This is probably going to play out like Oracle vs. Google when Google suddenly realized that they should lose and intentionally threw the case. I'm so worried about this case. Treating copyrighted training data as fair…

I would happily contribute all of my public source code under whatever license to a dataset that required models to also be open sourced. I am not OK with Microsoft creating a derivative work (Copilot's model) off of GPL code and not releasing the weights under the GPL.

I tend to agree, but to play devil's advocate, if we were talking about a biological neural network (person) training themselves by looking at GPL code, the GPL would of course not apply to code they release later in general.

Re: Generative AI profits off your code. Make them pay for it

#43

Post by heavyset_go »

s-lambert wrote: post #33
tarunmuvvala wrote: post #5

Thanks for taking the initiative. there is very little awareness and implication of this. I am not a developer, but I understand how generative AI leveraging your work to make it easier for someone else. A similar thing needs to be done for images too.

>I am not a developer, but I understand how generative AI leveraging your work to make it easier for someone else. To me this sounds like it's antithetical to open source software because the point of making software open source is so that other people can leverage your work. It shouldn't matter if it's done through generative AI or through a human's brain.

> the point of making software open source is so that other people can leverage your work

The point is that other people can leverage your work under the terms you distribute them under. For the vast majority of open source licenses, that means giving attribution and including the copyright notice and license when distributing the source code or its derivatives. For others, it means all of that and releasing derivatives under the same license.

If developers wanted to distribute their code under licenses with different terms, they would have, but they didn't.

Re: Generative AI profits off your code. Make them pay for it

#44

Post by slavik81 »

oadster wrote: post #24
bugfix-66 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. Could you paste the Humans Only Clause here so we can read it? Here was my attempt to write a clause prohibiting language model training/inference: https://bugfix-66.com/7a82559a13b39c7fa404320c14f47ce0c304fa... 3. Use in source or binary form for the construction or operation of predictive software generation systems is prohibited. How does the Humans Only Clause fix the flaws in my attempt? The Humans On…

"Use of the Software by any person to train, teach, prompt, populate, or otherwise further or facilitate any so-called generative artificial intelligence, generative algorithm, generative adversarial network, generative model, or similar or related activity (or to attempt to perform any of the foregoing acts or activity), whether in connection with any so-called machine learning, deep learning, neural network, or sim…

That clause appears to violate Item #6 of the OSI's open source definition:

> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

It also seems to violate freedom 0 of the FSF's four essential freedoms that define free software:

> The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

I'm not sure this can be used by open source projects if they want to remain open source projects.

Re: Generative AI profits off your code. Make them pay for it

#45

Post by rapjr9 »

A lot of web pages already have a copyright notice, why doesn't that stop AI's from training on the contents of web pages? Can you train AI's on patents? Or on binary executables? Or from cameras that observe the public? Or from public legal document repositories? Or from Lexus-Nexus data? Or your personal health tracking wearable data? What exactly is ok or not ok? AI's can train on just about anything. I have long had a suspicion that most sites with large user populations use their collected data to train a stock market algorithm (in addition to advertising algorithms). What rules apply to government use of AI trained on all the data governments collect?

Re: Generative AI profits off your code. Make them pay for it

#46

Post by s-lambert »

heavyset_go wrote: post #43
s-lambert wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I am not a developer, but I understand how generative AI leveraging your work to make it easier for someone else. To me this sounds like it's antithetical to open source software because the point of making software open source is so that other people can leverage your work. It shouldn't matter if it's done through generative AI or through a human's brain.

> the point of making software open source is so that other people can leverage your work The point is that other people can leverage your work under the terms you distribute them under. For the vast majority of open source licenses, that means giving attribution and including the copyright notice and license when distributing the source code or its derivatives. For others, it means all of that and releasing derivati…

But the generative models don't spit out existing code, it generates new code that (sometimes) happens to be the same as existing code. Which is the same as a human being does, just that an AI is much better at seeing a larger amount of existing work. There's no part of the model that has a specific piece of code, it just happens to reproduce the same thing.

People often write code that looks like existing code that they've seen even if they're not aware of it, it's a blurry line. I see it as just banning AI from doing the same thing as humans just because it's better at it.

An argument could be made that it's fair for an AI to not attribute the code it outputs too. The human-human reason for attribution is "I wrote this code by doing X amount of work, since you're using it and it'll save you time, I should fairly be given attribution". But then the AI is also writing out the code that it's prompted for, it's just faster at doing it.

Why not create a tool that instead runs the AI generated output through a check that provides proper attribution? Then you'll also get human written code that doesn't attribute the original author as well.

Re: Generative AI profits off your code. Make them pay for it

#47

Post by carom »

yummypaint wrote: post #41
carom wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would happily contribute all of my public source code under whatever license to a dataset that required models to also be open sourced. I am not OK with Microsoft creating a derivative work (Copilot's model) off of GPL code and not releasing the weights under the GPL.

I tend to agree, but to play devil's advocate, if we were talking about a biological neural network (person) training themselves by looking at GPL code, the GPL would of course not apply to code they release later in general.

These are not living beings though. They are programs. No one is arguing against humans learning.

>Neural networks approximate the function represented by your data.

Re: Generative AI profits off your code. Make them pay for it

#48

Post by carom »

echelon wrote: post #25
carom wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would happily contribute all of my public source code under whatever license to a dataset that required models to also be open sourced. I am not OK with Microsoft creating a derivative work (Copilot's model) off of GPL code and not releasing the weights under the GPL.

The amount of data (not just code) that we would need to get sign off on is prohibitively large. If you account for all the stakeholders, then this won't be easy at all. Meanwhile, the institutions will leap ahead of us. Models and annotated data sets will forever be out of reach. Open source equivalents will be severely behind the status quo.

Strongly disagree, institutions have an advantage in having the data, but they do not have the capability of creating more.

An intentional open source dataset could target new domains that there was no institutional will to pursue. I strongly believe that the open source community's capabilities far exceed that of any single large corporation.

Re: Generative AI profits off your code. Make them pay for it

#49

Post by bayindirh »

yummypaint wrote: post #41
carom wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would happily contribute all of my public source code under whatever license to a dataset that required models to also be open sourced. I am not OK with Microsoft creating a derivative work (Copilot's model) off of GPL code and not releasing the weights under the GPL.

I tend to agree, but to play devil's advocate, if we were talking about a biological neural network (person) training themselves by looking at GPL code, the GPL would of course not apply to code they release later in general.

> if we were talking about a biological neural network (person) training themselves by looking at GPL code...

The thing is, said person both reads way less code than a non-biological neural network, and emits its derivations based on many inputs regardless of the code it ingested via its high resolution multi focal adaptive light sensors. Including but not limited to experiences, communication with other biological neural networks, human-machine code translators (compilers), daily unpredictable hormone fluctuations and infinite other inputs it processed which affected all aspects of its cranial muscle and daily living circumstances and choices.

IOW, A neural network is neither a person, nor learns the same way or derives and emits the same way.

This is equal with claiming that a Furby is a person, just because it can babble and blink.

Re: Generative AI profits off your code. Make them pay for it

#50

Post by rklaehn »

Shindi wrote: post #10

A lot of people learned to code from completely free materials on the internet. In fact, it's actually amazing how much free learning resources there are on the internet. That's how we create a good internet ecosystem, not by making everyone pay for every little thing. Teaching AI how to code is a continuation of building this ecosystem because people will use these generative AI coding tools, lowering the bar to cod…

But if the AI has been trained on open source licensed code and occasionally can produce verbatim copies of said code, shouldn't the weights of the AI then also become open source under the same license?

You could argue that training is a form of compilation, and the weights are a derivative work.

Post reply on HN