I feel similarly for a different reason. I put my code out there, licensed under the GPL. It is now, through a layer of indirection, being used to construct products that are not under the GPL. That's not what I signed up for.
I know the GPL didn't have a specific clause for AI, and the jury is still out on this specific case (how similar is it to a human doing the same thing?), but I like to imagine, had it been made today, there probably would be a clause covering this usage. Personally I think it's a violation of the spirit of the license.
Yep, this is my take as well. It's not that open source is being stolen as such, as if you abide by an open source license you aren't stealing anything, it's that the licenses are being completely ignored for the profit of a few massive corporations.
Yeah, that's what I meant by "stolen", I should have been clearer. But indeed, this is the crux of the problem, I have no faith that licenses are being abided by.
What profit? All labs are taking massive losses and there's no clear path to profit for most of them yet.
The wealthiest people in tech aren't spending 10s of billions on this without the expectation of future profits. There's risk, but they absolutely expect the bets to be +EV overall.
Expected profit.
GPL works via copyright. Since AI companies claim fair use no copyright applies. There is no fixing this. The only option is not to publish.
There are non-US jurisdictions where you have some options, but since most of them are trained in the US that won't help much.
> Since AI companies claim fair use no copyright applies. There is no fixing this.
They can claim whatever they want. You can still try to stop it via lawsuits and make them claim it in court. Granted, I believe there's already been some jurisdictions that have sided with fair use in those particular cases.
Laws can be changed. This is right now a trillion dollar industry, perhaps later it could even become a billion dollar industry. Either way, it's very important.
Strict copyright enforcement is a competitive disadvantage. Western countries lobbied for copyright enforcement in the 20th century because it was beneficial. Now the tables have turned, don't hold your breath for copyright enforcement against the wishes of the markets. We are all China now.
Yes, I think Japan added an AI friendly copyright law. If there were problems in the US, they'd just move training there.
Moving training won't help them if their paying customers are in jurisdictions which do respect copyright as written and intended.
OPs idea is about having a new GPL like license with a "may not be used for LLM training" clause.
That the LLM itself is not allowed to produce copyrighted work (e.g. just copies of works or too structurally similar) without using a license for that work is something that is probably currently law. They are working around this via content filters. They probably also have checks during/after training that it does not reproduce work that is too similar. There are law suits about this pending if I remember correctly e.g. with the New York Times.
The issue is that everyone is focusing on verbatim (or "too similar") reproduction.
LLMs themselves are compressed models of the training data. The trick is the compression is highly lossy by being able to detect higher-order patterns instead of fucusing on the first-order input tokens (or bytes). If you look at how, for example, any of the Lempel-Ziv algorithms work, they also contain patterns from the input and they also predict the next token (usually byte in their case), except they do it with 100% probability because they are lossless.
So copyright should absolutely apply to the models themselves and if trained on AGPL code, the models have to follow the AGPL license and I have the right to see their "source" by just being their user.
And if you decompress a file from a copyrighted archive, the file is obviously copyrighted. Even if you decompress only a part. What LLMs do is another trick - by being lossy, they decompress probabilistically based on all the training inputs - without seeing the internals, nobody can prove how much their particular work contributed to the particular output.
But it is all mechanical transformation of input data, just like synonym replacement, just more sophisticated, and the same rules regarding plagiarism and copyright infringement should apply.
---
Back to what you said - the LLM companies use fancy language like "artificial intelligence" to distract from this so they can they use more fancy language to claim copyright does not apply. And in that case, no license would help because any such license fundamentally depends on copyright law, which as they claim does not apply.
That's the issue with LLMs - if they get their way, there's no way to opt out. If there was, AGPL would already be sufficient.
I agree with your view. One just has to go into courts and somehow get the judges to agree as well.
An open question would be if there is some degree of "loss" where copyright no longer applies. There is probably case law about this in different jurisdictions w.r.t. image previews or something.
I don't think copyright should be binary or should work the way it does not. It's just the only tool we have now.
There should be a system which protects all work (intellectual and physical) and makes sure the people doing it get rewarded according to the amount of work and skill level. This is a radical idea and not fully compatible with capitalism as implemented today. I have a lot on my to-read list and I don't think I am the first to come up with this but I haven't found anyone else describing it, yet.
And maybe it's broken by some degenerate case and goes tits up like communism always did. But AFAICT, it's a third option somewhere in between, taking the good parts of each.
For now, I just wanna find ways to stop people already much richer than me from profiting from my work without any kind of compensation for me. I want inequality to stop worsening but OTOH, in the past, large social change usually happened when things got so bad people rejected the status quo and went to the streets, whether with empty hands or not. And that feels like where we're headed and I don't know whether I should be exited or worried.
I recall a basics of law class saying that in some countries (e.g. Czech Republic), open source contributors have the right to small compensation if their work is used to a large financial benefit.
At some point, I'll have to look it up because if that's right, the billionaires and wannabe-trillionaires owe me a shitton of money.
One work-around would be to legislate that code produce by an LLM trained on GPL code would also be GPL.
There are licenses that are incompatible with each other, which implies that one wouldn’t be allowed to train LLMs on code based on multiple such licenses.
Sounds reasonable to me - much the same way that building a project from multiple incompatible licenses wouldn't be allowed. The alternative is that using an LLM could just be an end-run around the choice of license that a developer used.
Copyright normally only applies when you’re plagiarizing. LLM output typically isn’t that. It’s more like someone having studied multiple open source projects with incompatible licenses and coding up their own version of them, which is perfectly fine. So your “workaround” is overshooting things by far, IMO.
My understanding is that LLMs are plagiarising openly available code - it's not like the code is used to inspire a person as that involves creative thinking. I'm thinking that taking a piece of code and applying a transformation to it to make it look different (e.g. changing variable/function names) would be still considered plagiarism. In the case of the GPL, I think it would be entirely appropriate for a GPL trained LLM to be required to license its code output as GPL.
I suppose the question is when does a machine applied transformation become a new work?
The argument of the AI megacorps is that generated work is not "derivative" and therefore doesn't fall interact with the original authors copyright. They have invented a machine that takes in copyrighted works, and from a legal standpoint produces "entirely original" code. No license, be that GPL or otherwise, can do anything about that, because they ultimately rely on the authors copyright to required the licensee to observe the license.
They cannot violate the license, because in their view they have not licensed anything from you.
I think that's horse shit, and a clear violation of the intellectual property rights that are supposed to protect creatives from the business boys, but apparently the stock market must grow.
What makes this whole thing even weirder for me is the similar fact that any output from AI might not enjoy copyright protections. So basically if you can steal software made with AI you can freely resell it.
During the gold rush, it is said, the only people who made money were the ones selling the pickaxes. A"I" companies are ~selling~ renting the pickaxes of today.
(I didn't come up with this quote but I can't find the source now. If anything good comes out of LLMs, it's making me appreciate other people's more and trying to give credit where it's due.)
Wasn't it shovels?
NVidia is a shovel-maker worth a few trillion dollars...
What about the people who sold gold? Didn't they make money?
To be honest, I haven't looked at any statistics but I imagine a tiny few of those looking for gold found any and got rich, the most either didn't find anything, died of illness or exposure or got robbed. I just like the quote as a comparison. Updated the original comment to reflect I haven't checked if it's correct.
Now imagine how much more that sucks for artists and designers that were putting artwork out there to advertise themselves only to have some douchebag ingest it in order to sell cheap simulacra.
If you want, I made a coherent argument about how the mechanics of LLMs mean both their training and inference is plagiarism and should be copyright infringement.[0] TL;DR it's about reproducing higher order patterns instead of word for word.
I haven't seen this argument made elsewhere, it would be interesting to get it into the courtrooms - I am told cases are being fought right now but I don't have the energy to follow them.
Plus as somebody else put it eloquently, it's labor theft - we, working programmers, exchanged out limited lifetime for money (already exploitative) in a world with certain rules. Now the rules changed, our past work has much more value, and we don't get compensated.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46187330
The first thing you need to do is brush up on some IP law around software in the United States. Start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea–expression_distinction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure,_sequence_and_organi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction-Filtration-Compari...
In a court of law you're going to have to argue that something is an expression instead of an idea. Most of what LLMs pump out are almost definitionally on the idea side of the spectrum. You'd basically have to show verbatim code or class structure at the expressive level to the courts.
Thanks for the links, I'll read them in more detail later.
There's a couple issues I see:
1) All of the concepts were developed with the idea that only humans are capable of certain kinds of work needed for producing IP. A human would not engage in highly repetitive and menial transformation of other people's material to avoid infringement if he could get the same or better result by working from scratch. This placed, throughout history, an upper limit on how protective copyright had to be.
Say, 100 years ago, synonym replacement and paraphrasing of sentences were SOTA methods to make copies of a book which don't look like copies without putting in more work than the original. Say, 50 years ago, computers could do synonym replacement automatically so it freed up some time for more elaborate restructuring of the original work and the level of protection should have shifted. Say, 10 years ago, one could use automatic replacement of phrases or translation to another language and back, freeing up yet more time.
The law should have adapted with each technological step up and according to your links it has - given the cases cited. It's been 30 years and we have a massive step up in automatic copying capabilities - the law should change again to protect the people who make this advancement possible.
Now with a sufficiently advanced LLM trained on all public and private code, you can prompt them to create a 3D viewer for Quake map files and I am sure it'll most of the time produce a working program which doesn't look like any of the training inputs but does feel vaguely familiar in structure. Then you can prompt it to add a keyboard-controlled character with Quake-like physics and it'll produce something which has the same quirks as Quake movement. Where did bunny hopping, wallrunning, strafing, circlejumps, etc. come from if it did not copy the original and the various forks?
Somebody had to put in creative work to try out various physics systems and figure out what feels good and what leads to interesting gameplay.
Now we have algorithms which can imitate the results but which can only be created by using the product of human work without consent. I think that's an exploitative practice.
2) It's illegal to own humans but legal to own other animals. The USA law uses terms such as "a member of the species Homo sapiens" (e.g. [0]) in these cases.
If the legality of tech in question was not LLMs but remixing of genes (only using a tiny fraction of human DNA) to produce a animals which are as smart as humans with chimpanzee bodies which can be incubated in chimpanzee females but are otherwise as sentient as humans, would (and should) it be legal to own them as slaves and use them for work? It would probably be legal by the current letter of the law but I assure you the law would quickly change because people would not be OK with such overt exploitation.
The difference is the exploitation by LLM companies is not as overt - in fact, mane people refer to LLMs as AIs and use pronouns such as "he" or "she", indicating them believe them to be standalone thinking entities instead of highly compressed lossy archives of other people's work.
3) The goal of copyright is progress, not protection of people who put in work to make that progress possible. I think that's wrong.
I am aware of the "is" vs "should" distinction but since laws are compromises between the monopoly in violence and the people's willingness to revolt instead of being an (attempted) codification of a consistent moral system, the best we can do is try to use the current laws (what is) to achieve what is right (what should be).
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
But "vaguely familiar in structure" could be argued to be the only reasonable way to do something, depending on the context. This is part of the filtration step in AFC.
The idea of wallrunning should not be protected by copyright.
The thing is a model trained on the same input as current models except Quake and Quake derivatives would not generate such code. (You'd have to prompt it with descriptions of quake physics since it wouldn't know what you mean, depending on whether only code or all mentions were excluded.)
The quake special behaviors are results of essentially bugs which were kept because it led to fun gameplay. The model would almost certainly generate explicit handling for these behaviors because the original quake code is very obviously not the only reasonable way to do it. And in that case the model and its output is derivative work of the training input.
The issue is such an experiment (training a model with specific content excluded) would cost (tens/hundreds of?) millions of dollars and the only companies able to do it are not exactly incentivized to try.
---
And then there's the thing that current LLMs are fundamentally impossible to create without such large amounts of code as training data. I honestly don't care what the letter of the law is, to any reasonable person, that makes them derivative work of the training input and claiming otherwise is a scam and theft.
I always wonder if people arguing otherwise think they're gonna get something out of it when the dust settles or if they genuinely think society should take stuff from a subgroup of people against their will when it can to enrich itself.
“Exploitative” is not a legal category in copyright. If the concern is labor compensation or market power, that’s a question for labor law, contract law, or antitrust, not idea-expression analysis and questions of derivative works.
There was a legal analysis of the copyright implications of Copilot among a set of white papers commissioned by the Free Software Foundation: https://www.fsf.org/licensing/copilot/copyright-implications...
And HN does its thing again - at least 3 downvotes, 0 replies. If you disagree, say why, otherwise I have to assume my argument is correct and nobody has any counterarguments but people who profit from this hate it being seen.
I agree that training on copyrighted material is violating the law, but not for the reasons you stated.
That said, this comment is funny to me because I’ve done the same thing too, take some signal of disagreement, and assume the signal means I’m right and there’s a low-key conspiracy to hold me down, when it was far more likely that either I was at least a bit wrong, or said something in an off-putting way. In this case, I tend to agree with the general spirit of the sibling comment by @williamcotton in that it seems like you’re inventing some criteria that are not covered by copyright law. Copyrights cover the “fixation” of a work, meaning they protect only its exact presentation. Copyrights do not cover the Madlibs or Cliff Notes scenarios you proposed. (Do think about Cliff Notes in particular and what it implies about AI - Cliff Notes are explicitly legal.)
Personally, I’ve had a lot of personal forward progress on HN when I assume that downvotes mean I said something wrong, and work through where my own assumptions are bad, and try to update them. This is an important step especially when I think I’m right.
I’m often tempted to ask for downvote explanations too, but FWIW, it never helps, and aside from HN guidelines asking people to avoid complaining about downvotes, I find it also helps to think of downvotes as symmetric to upvotes. We don’t comment on or demand an explanation for an upvote, and an upvote can be given for many reasons - it’s not only used for agreement, it can be given for style, humor, weight, engagement, pity, and many other reasons. Realizing downvotes are similar and don’t only mean disagreement helps me not feel personally attacked, and that can help me stay more open to reflecting on what I did that is earning the downvotes. They don’t always make sense, but over time I can see more places I went wrong.
> or said something in an off-putting way
It shouldn't matter.
Currently, downvote means "I want this to be ranked lower". There really should be 2 options "factually incorrect" and "disagree". For people who think it should matter, there should be a third option, "rude", which others can ignore.
I've actually emailed about this with a mod and it seems he conflated talking about downvotes with having to explain a reason. He also told me (essentially) people should not have the right to defend themselves against incorrect moderator decisions and I honestly didn't know what to say to that, I'll probably message him again to confirm this is what he meant but I don't have high hopes after having similar interactions with mods on several different sites.
> FWIW, it never helps
The way I see it, it helped since I got 2 replies with more stuff to read about. Did you mean it doesn't work for you?
> downvotes as symmetric to upvotes
Yes, and we should have more upvote options too. I am not sure the explanation should be symmetric though.
Imagine a group conversation in which somebody lies (the "factually incorrect" case here). Depending on your social status within the group and group politics, you might call out the lie in public, in private with a subset or not at all. But if you do, you will almost certainly be expected to provide a reasoning or evidence.
Now imagine he says something which is factually correct. If you say you agree, are you expected to provide references why? I don't think so.
---
BTW, on a site which is a more technical alternative to HN, there was recently a post about strange behavior of HN votes. Other people posted their experience with downvotes here and they mirrored mine - organic looking (i.e. gradual) upvotes, then within minutes of each other several downvotes. It could be coincidence but me and others suspect voting rings evading detection.
I also posted a link to my previous comment as an experiment - if people disagree, they are more likely to also downvote that one. But I did not see any change there so I suspect it might be bots (which are unlikely to be instructed to also click through and downvote there). Note sample size is 1 here, for now.
Maybe if you constructed your argument in terms of the relevant statutes for your jurisdiction, like an actual copyright attorney does, HN might be more receptive to it?
I argue primarily about morality (right and wrong), not legality. The argument is valid morally, if LLM companies found a loophole ion the law, it should be closed.
You literally wrote "it would be interesting to get it into the courtrooms". A court won't give a hoot about your opinions on morality.
1) I appreciate that you differentiate between legality and morality, many people sadly don't.
2) re "hoot": You can say "fuck" here. You've been rudely dismissive twice now, yet you use a veil of politeness. I prefer when people don't hide their displeasure at me.
3) If you think I am wrong, you can say so instead of downvoting, it'll be more productive.
4) If you want me to expend effort on looking up statutes, you can say so instead of downvoting, it'll be more productive.
5) The law can be changed. If a well-reasoned argument is presented publicly, such as in a court room, and the general agreement is that the argument should apply but the court has to reject is because of poorly designed laws, that's a good impetus for changing it.