Comment by jakkos

Exactly that. And all the books about, for instance, operating systems, totally based on the work of others: their ideas where collected and documented, the exact algorithms, and so forth. All the human culture worked this way. Moreover there is a strong pattern of the most prolific / known open source developers being NOT against the fact that their code was used for training: they can't talk for everybody but it is a signal that for many this use is within the scope of making source code available.

If you fork an open source project and nuke the git history, that's considered to be a "dick move" because you are erasing the record of people's contributions.

LLMs are doing this on an industrial scale.

You can say that about literally everything, yet we have robust systems for protecting intellectual property, anyway.

> I don't think it's possible to separate any open source contribution from the ones that came before it, as we're all standing on the shoulders of giants. Every developer learns from their predecessors and adapts patterns and code from existing projects.

Yes but you can also ask the developer (wheter in libera.irc, or say if its a foss project on any foss talk, about which books and blogs they followed for code patterns & inspirations & just talk to them)

I do feel like some aspects of this are gonna get eaten away by the black box if we do spec-development imo.

> If you use an open source license, you could forbid LLM training

Established OSS licenses are all from before anyone imagined that LLMs would come into existence, let alone train on and then generate code. Discrimination on purpose is counter to OSI principles (https://opensource.org/osd):

> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

> 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.

The GPL argument you describe hinges on making the legal case that LLMs produce "derived works". When the output can't be clearly traced to source input (even the system itself doesn't know how) it becomes rather difficult to argue that in court.

You pre suppose that output is derive work (not a given) and that training is not fair use (also not a given).

If the courts decide to apply the law as you assume the AI companies are all dead. But they are all betting that's not going to be the case. And since so much of the industry is taking the bet with them... The courts will take that into account

If he didn't want us to read Metamorphosis he probably shouldn't have had it published. It was, long before his death.

But it's true much of his work was unpublished when he died and was "rescued" or "stolen", depending on what narrative you prefer.

No, in the same way that I wouldn't cite Euler every time I used one of his theorems - because it's so well known that its history is well documented in countless places.

However, if I was using a more recent/niche/unknown theorem, it would absolutely be considered bad practice not to cite where I got it from.

If I was implementing any known (named) algorithm intentionally I think I would absolutely say so in a comment (`// here we use quick sort to...` and maybe why it's the choice) and then it's easy for someone to look up and see it's due to Hoare or whoever on Wikipedia etc.

Now many will downvote you because this is an algorithm and not some code. But the reality is that programming is in large part built looking at somebody else code / techniques, internalizing them, and reproducing them again with changes. So actually it works like that for code as well.

"Expropriated" usually means a government order, though. Do LLMs have one?

But the license terms state under which conditions the code is released.

For example: MIT license states has this clause "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software."

It stands to reason that if an LLM outputs something based on MIT-licensed code then that output should at least contain that copyright because it's what the original author wished.

And I saw a comment below arguing that knowledge cannot be copyrighted, but the code is an expression of that knowledge and that most certainly can be protected by copyright.

Hot take: The Supreme Court should have sided with Oracle. APIs are a clear example of unique expression, and there is no statute exempting them specifically from copyright protection. If they are not protected by copyright, is anything really? What meaning has copyright law then?