> It is very unlikely that LLM had access to original source code of Photoshop.
It doesn’t matter. It’s likely had access to the knowledge of somebody who worked on that source code.
I have worked at companies that have done clean-room implementations. I was not permitted to look at their source or interact with those teams, because I had been exposed to the source of what they were re-implementing in a prior job.
As a human with a mushy brain I was never going to remember the source, but the fact I had been proximate to it was enough to lock me out. You have no idea what the LLM trained on, so you can’t prove a LLM derived clone is a “clean-room” implementation.
Some questionable idea that the LLM "had access to the knowledge of somebody who worked on Photoshop source code" seems like a poor basis to allege it's not a clean room implementation.
Wouldn't the burden of proof here be on Adobe if they wanted to make such an argument?
The first part (re: AI tools) is ostensibly not true. It all depends on the degree to which the data that they "don't train on" gets laundered and anonymized to the point where they are able to justify training on it without it being "yours" any more.
And I don't think that is publicly known at the current time. (If anyone has any tangible info on this, the please let me know...)
> It is very unlikely that LLM had access to original source code of Photoshop.
It doesn’t matter. It’s likely had access to the knowledge of somebody who worked on that source code.
I have worked at companies that have done clean-room implementations. I was not permitted to look at their source or interact with those teams, because I had been exposed to the source of what they were re-implementing in a prior job.
As a human with a mushy brain I was never going to remember the source, but the fact I had been proximate to it was enough to lock me out. You have no idea what the LLM trained on, so you can’t prove a LLM derived clone is a “clean-room” implementation.
Some questionable idea that the LLM "had access to the knowledge of somebody who worked on Photoshop source code" seems like a poor basis to allege it's not a clean room implementation.
Wouldn't the burden of proof here be on Adobe if they wanted to make such an argument?
It could have access for code of an older version with how there has been leaks of sources of various commercial applications over the years.
They have had access to plenty of A/GPL software. They are all highly problematic from an ethical and legal point of view.
If adobe use any AI tools to help develop photoshop, its all been loaded in. Or if its ever ended up anywhere on the internet, even in private
The first part (re: AI tools) is ostensibly not true. It all depends on the degree to which the data that they "don't train on" gets laundered and anonymized to the point where they are able to justify training on it without it being "yours" any more.
And I don't think that is publicly known at the current time. (If anyone has any tangible info on this, the please let me know...)