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

AI and the Ship of Theseus

lucumr.pocoo.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 203 posts

Re: AI and the Ship of Theseus

#4

Post by jimmaswell »

moralestapia wrote: post #2

[flagged]

This entirely misses the point. Re-implementing code based on API surface and compatibility is established fair use if done properly (Compaq v. IBM, Google v. Oracle). There's nothing wrong with doing that if you don't like a license. What's in question is doing this with AI that may or may not have been trained on the source. In the instance in the article where the result is very different, it's probably in the clear regardless. I'm sympathetic to the author as I generally don't like GPL either outside specific cases where it works well like the Linux kernel.

Re: AI and the Ship of Theseus

#5

Post by blell »

jimmaswell wrote: post #4
moralestapia wrote: post #2

[flagged]

This entirely misses the point. Re-implementing code based on API surface and compatibility is established fair use if done properly (Compaq v. IBM, Google v. Oracle). There's nothing wrong with doing that if you don't like a license. What's in question is doing this with AI that may or may not have been trained on the source. In the instance in the article where the result is very different, it's probably in the cle…

This reminds me of people crying over toybox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toybox#Controversy

Re: AI and the Ship of Theseus

#6

Post by scuff3d »

The solution to this whole situation seems pretty simple to me. LLMs were trained on a giant mix of code, and it's impossible to disentangle it, but a not insignificant portion of their capabilities comes from GPL licenced code. Therefore, any codebase that uses LLM code is now GPL. You have a proprietary product? Not anymore.

Not saying there's a legal precedent for that right now, but it's the only thing that makes any sense to me. Either that or retain the models on only MIT/similarly licenced code or code you have explicit permission to train on.

Re: AI and the Ship of Theseus

#7

Post by nomdep »

In this emerging reality, the whole spectrum of open-source licenses effectively collapses toward just two practical choices: release under something permissive like MIT (no real restrictions), or keep your software fully proprietary and closed.

These are fascinating, if somewhat scary, times.

Re: AI and the Ship of Theseus

#9

Post by trueismywork »

jimmaswell wrote: post #4
moralestapia wrote: post #2

[flagged]

This entirely misses the point. Re-implementing code based on API surface and compatibility is established fair use if done properly (Compaq v. IBM, Google v. Oracle). There's nothing wrong with doing that if you don't like a license. What's in question is doing this with AI that may or may not have been trained on the source. In the instance in the article where the result is very different, it's probably in the cle…

The real test would be to see how much of generated code is similar to the old code. Because then it is still a copyright. Just becsuse you drew mickey mouse from memory doesnt above you if it looks close enough to original hickey mouse.

Re: AI and the Ship of Theseus

#10

Post by keithnz »

scuff3d wrote: post #6

The solution to this whole situation seems pretty simple to me. LLMs were trained on a giant mix of code, and it's impossible to disentangle it, but a not insignificant portion of their capabilities comes from GPL licenced code. Therefore, any codebase that uses LLM code is now GPL. You have a proprietary product? Not anymore. Not saying there's a legal precedent for that right now, but it's the only thing that makes…

if you train yourself by looking at GPL code then go implement your own things, is that code GPL?
Post reply on HN