Comment by reidrac

Comment by reidrac a day ago

> Pre-training is, actually, our collective gift that allows many individuals to do things they could otherwise never do, like if we are now linked in a collective mind, in a certain way.

Is not a gift if it was stolen.

Anyway, in my opinion the code that was generated by the LLM is yours as long as you're responsible for it. When I look at a PR I'm reading the output of a person, independently of the tools that person used.

There's conflict perhaps when the submitter doesn't take full ownership of the code. So I agree with Antirez on that part

tonyedgecombe 21 hours ago

>Is not a gift if it was stolen.

Yeah, I had a visceral reaction to that statement.

Reply View 3 replies

amelius 13 hours ago

Yet nobody is changing their licenses to exclude AI use. So I assume they are OK with it.

Reply View | 2 replies
- heavyset_go 9 hours ago
  
  Licenses mean nothing if AI training on your data is fair use, which courts have yet to determine.
  You can have a license that says "NO AI TRAINING EVER" in no uncertain terms and it would mean absolutely nothing because fair use isn't dictated by licenses.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- oxag3n 11 hours ago
  
  What's the point of changing the license? It will be scrapped anyway.
  'The only winning move is not to play' - stop contributing to OSS.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

slim 21 hours ago

It is knowledge, it can't be stolen. It is stolen only in the sense of someone gatekeeping knowledge. Which is as a practice, the least we can say, dubious. because is math stolen ? if you stole math to build your knowledge on top of it, you own nothing and can claim to have been stolen yourself

Reply View 18 replies

wernsey 17 hours ago

I disagree.
Code is the expression of knowledge and can be protected by copyright.
A lot of the popular licenses on GitHub (like MIT) permits you to use a piece of code on the condition that you credit the original author. If an LLM outputs code from such a project (or remixes code from several such projects) then it needs to credit the original authors or be in violation.
If Disney's intellectual property can be stolen and needs to be protected for 95+ years by copyright then surely the bedroom programmers' labor deserves the same protections.

Reply View | 1 reply
- slim 12 hours ago
  
  We're not talking about the expression of knowledge. What is used in AI models is the knowledge from that expression. That code is not copied as is, instead knowledge is extracted from it and used to produce similar code. Copyright does not apply, IMHO
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
jakkos 21 hours ago

Are you against copyright, patents, and IP in all forms then?

Reply View | 11 replies
- catdog 21 hours ago
  
  Independent of ones philosophical stance on the broader topic: I find it highly concerning that AI companies, at least right now, seem to be largely exempt from all those rules which apply to everyone else, often enforced rigorously.
  
  Reply View | 7 replies
  
  logicprog 17 hours ago
  
  I draw from this that no-one should be subject to those rules, and we should try to use the AI companies as a wedge to widen that crack. Instead, most people people who claim that their objection is really only consistency, not love for IP spend their time trying to tighten the definitions of fair use, widen the definitions of derivative works, and in general make IP even stronger, which will effect far more than just the AI companies they're going after. This doesn't look to me like the behavior of people who truly only want consistency, but don't like IP.
  And before you say that they're doing it because it's always better to resist massive, evil corporations than to side with them, even if it might seem expedient to do so, the people who are most strongly fighting against AI companies in favor of IP, in the name of "consistency" are themselves siding with Disney, one of the most evil companies — from the perspective of the health of the arts and our culture — that's working right now. So they're already fine with siding with corporations; they just happened to pick the side that's pro-IP.
  
  Reply View | 6 replies
- logicprog 21 hours ago
  
  I am.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- thedevilslawyer 18 hours ago
  
  Absolutely. As any logical person should be.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  sarchertech 15 hours ago
  
  This is obviously false on the face of it. Let’s say I have a patent, song, or a book that that I receive large royalty payments for. It would obviously not be logical for me be in favor of abolishing something that’s beneficial to me.
  Declaring that your side has a monopoly on logic is rarely helpful.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
lou1306 21 hours ago

If you are so adamant about this, why don't you release all your own code in the public domain? Aren't you gatekeeping knowledge too?

Reply View | 3 replies
- logicprog 21 hours ago
  
  I agree with GP, and so, yes, I release everything I do — code and the hundreds of thousands of painstakingly researched, drafted, deeply thought through words of writing that I do — using a public domain equivalent license (to ensure it's as free as possible), the zero clause BSD.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  neochief 21 hours ago
  
  Is there a link?
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  logicprog 18 hours ago
  
  Sure!
  Personal blog: https://neonvagabond.xyz/ (591,305 total words, written over 6 years; feel free to do whatever you want with it)
  My personal github page: https://github.com/alexispurslane/ (I only recently switched to Zero-Clause BSD for my code, and haven't gotten around to re-licensing all my old stuff, but I give you permission to send a PR with a different license to any of them if you wanna use any of it)
  
  Reply View | 0 replies