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

51–57 of 57 posts

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

#51

Post by rklaehn »

briga wrote: post #36

It certainly raises some interesting questions. After a model has been trained is there really any surefire way to prove that these models are profiting from your individual code? How is this different, from, say, search indexing in Google? Imagine Wikipedia wants to sue Google for stealing their content. Google essential keeps a mirror of Wikipedia and uses that data to serve up better search results (sometimes). Bu…

In some cases the model will spit out verbatim copies of code. E.g. https://twitter.com/docsparse/status/1581461734665367554?lan...

So in this case the weights are not even a derivative work but just a compressed copy of the original code.

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

#53

Post by lost_tourist »

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 think the issues is making the work usable by people for free and for a fee paid to microsoft because (mostly) due to open source licenses that help keep the software free and not a boon only to huge corporations. This seems like a sneaky way of getting around the licensing. Maybe GPL4 that covers usage by AI models

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

#54

Post by yummypaint »

bayindirh wrote: post #49
yummypaint wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

I'm not saying all neural networks are people, im saying people are a subset of neural networks by definition. We don't have any idea how consciousness works, and our brains are essentially still black boxes.

In a similar way, noone really understands intuitively how these ML models are actually working (we treat them as mostly black boxes in practice), in contrast to looking at an equation for instance. I have played with some of these text generation models, and frankly we are already at the point where deciding whether or not they pass the turing test depends on the details rather than the spirit of the rules for the test. It may not be a coincidence that NNs designed to replicate our own brain structure also replicate important aspects of our cognition.

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

#55

Post by sva_ »

rklaehn wrote: post #52

This is a very clear cut case of a copyright violation by github copilot: https://twitter.com/docsparse/status/1581461734665367554?lan... In this instance the weights of the AI system just contain an obfuscated copy of the original source code.

As others have said before, it is fairly likely that the copyright violation probably happened before copilot learned from it, namely by people copying this code and publishing it under a different license.

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

#56

Post by cmeacham98 »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #11

I see that your lawyers have reviewed the licensing terms. Great! However, have they reviewed Microsoft's claims that their use of code for Copilot is open source? And if they have, is there somewhere I can read that analysis? Now, Microsoft could be wrong on that claim, but until someone convinces me otherwise I'm going to assume their lawyers did their due diligence and they're correct. If Microsoft is correct abou…

I don't know how I missed this but I can't edit my comment now, I meant to say

"their use of code for Copilot is open source" -> "their use of code for Copilot is __fair use__"

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

#57

Post by bayindirh »

echelon wrote: post #14
ipsum2 wrote: post #4

If you put your code on Github, it's bound by the TOS, which states ( https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t... ): > We need the legal right to do things like host Your Content, publish it, and share it. You grant us and our legal successors the right to store, archive, parse, and display Your Content, and make incidental copies, as necessary to provide the Service, including improving the Servi…

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'm so worried about this case. Treating copyrighted training data as fair use, and letting models learn as a child might learn from a book or movie, is the best way to proceed. It widens the playing field for both development and disruption.

Which also opens the floodgates for bleeding GPL and other copylefted code to proprietary realm. Very convenient, yes.

I’m never OK with someone making a derivation engine which offers my GPL code to a closed source base.

Post reply on HN