you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 18 hours ago (6 children)

to look at it another way: since anything an llm spits out is public domain, whoever commanded it do so is automatically in breach of the gpl unless they can show evidence that there is no copyleft material in the training data at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 17 hours ago (5 children)

    Afaik that's not exactly so. I recall articles saying that significant input/prompt may influence that. Whether this is true or not I can't say.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

    can't be. if there is gpled code in the training data, all code must be gpl since the model is one work. and since it can't, that's a breach.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 17 hours ago (2 children)

    Yeah, in theory. In practice, good luck proving it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 14 hours ago

    I hate seeing this kind of doomerism around AI discussions. A future where we have no rights is not inevitable.

    We know for a fact that OpenAI, Anthropic, Google etc trained on GPL code. They haven't claimed otherwise, and this isn't something they're trying to hide.

    We also know what the various open source models were trained on, since they're open source.

    We can pass laws that require LLM providers to disclose their data set in some way, eg through independent audits. Trump is the one who didn't want AI regulation, and he basically just lost all ability to make that a reality. The final six weeks of the pedophile congress isn't likely to accomplish anything on that front, and even if they do, the incoming congress can reverse it.

    This is the time to energize people, not complain on the internet.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 14 hours ago

    I recall articles saying that significant input/prompt may influence that. Whether this is true or not I can’t say.

    That's not true. Until these issues have run through the courts, we won't know what is or isn't legal. The biggest court case I'm familiar with atm is the New York Times' case that has yet to be resolved, and even then the ruling there will probably be too narrow to decide anything for code licensing. Hell, OpenAI/Microsoft might even settle to avoid a bad ruling, leaving all those questions unanswered.

    So the Tl;Dr is that anyone using LLMs to code (in any capacity) is taking a risk, since the legality of it is still uncertain. It's not outside the realm of possibility that some court will rule that LLMs trained on stolen data are illegal, and the outputs of those models are infringing.

  • source
  • parent