We now note that that we do not waive our attribution requirements for Spritely Goblins, which are present in Apache v2 (and for that matter, CC BY, CC BY-SA, and most FOSS licenses) https://codeberg.org/spritely/goblins/pulls/998/files
-
-
@raphaelmorgan @cwebber @LunaDragofelis another part of this is that it treats a corporation doing something the same as a individual doing it, which has different dynamics at play; but your not allowed to point it out
alot mention an idea of it being for-profit, but thats not really the whole of the issue there and i think not a very good look at things.
another issue is that AI is not piracy its taking the thing and trying to make some product their trying to sell .. piracy is just the thing distributed by someone else .. whos not approved
.. and maybe modded to bypass DRM. but to be honest i tend to avoid; copyright related reasons for saying AI bad for this reason; its not like thats all you have, its also used for mass survailence, the military are training it to murder people, its good at generating propaganda, it encourages reliance on it giving whoever made it lots of power and; also generally training is very intensive on infrastructure, but yeah.
@Li @cwebber @LunaDragofelis I think the for-profit point is definitely part of it (for me) but not nearly as much as some say. Like, I would still be upset if an individual took my work, modified it a bit (if only to remove my signature or what have you), and claimed they made it. But I wouldn't feel nearly as powerless or angry as when a corporation does it.
And yeah, talking about non-copyright-based reasons is very important, because copyright is yet another capitalist system oppressing us
-
@Li @cwebber I did not imply that solving attribution automatically resolves every other issue. I am asking about specific thing - AI not propertly attributing its sources used for the output. That's a concrete problem. I asked if attributing to *all* sources is good.engough to solve this particular problem.
-
@Li @cwebber I conclude from your answer that referring to all sources, even not really used in the specific output is practically solving attribution (at least, from your perspective). I'd like to point out that may or may not be enough for other people who are looking for their work to be attributed.
So, no, I did not say "consider one issue, then solve that issue". What I proposed may or may not be a solution.
-
@Li @cwebber Let's me give you exaggregated example - what if every slop code starts to attribute *every possible website on the internet*. Or even non-slop code using a code licensed with attribution does not attribute just to that code, but also to 1000 other codes (that have very little to do with this non-slop code). That feels not exactly right, although might technically fulfill the license. But maybe that's just me.
-
@Li @cwebber That's what I thought rightaway after I came up with this idea with overattribution. Obvious for me, and I wanted to see if it is the same for others. (It is not).
For the attribution context, one can always invent new word for it (like "statistically inspired" of whatever).
The bigger issue is for authors who may not even care about open source, but just want attribution to see usefulness of their work. Over-attribution is an insult for them.
-
@bkuhn @joeyh @cwebber @trashheap
The web server was not written in one go as a whole.
It was put together patch by patch
It was therefore A Patchy Server.Being conscious of assorted things does not entirely rule out occasional flashes of humour, accretions of language, and mnemonic conveniences.
I hope.
What you describe about “A-patchy” is a post-hoc constructed backstory that an unnamed third party came up with, but ultimately was used by the org to build a *false* backstory.
& I (re-)found the receipts on this recently: https://web.archive.org/web/20070501205953/http://www.linux-mag.com/id/472
>“When I thought of the name [Apache] … [I thought it] connoted: ‘Take no prisoners. Be kind of aggressive and kick some ass.‘”
— Brian Behlendorf, founder of Apache [sic] Software FoundationCc: @joeyh @cwebber @trashheap
-
What you describe about “A-patchy” is a post-hoc constructed backstory that an unnamed third party came up with, but ultimately was used by the org to build a *false* backstory.
& I (re-)found the receipts on this recently: https://web.archive.org/web/20070501205953/http://www.linux-mag.com/id/472
>“When I thought of the name [Apache] … [I thought it] connoted: ‘Take no prisoners. Be kind of aggressive and kick some ass.‘”
— Brian Behlendorf, founder of Apache [sic] Software FoundationCc: @joeyh @cwebber @trashheap
@bkuhn @joeyh @cwebber @trashheap
RetConned. Ah well.
A rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet. -
@bkuhn @copiesofcopies Of course the legislative environment has *always* been tailored to proprietary software. Without copyright (and related intellectual restrictions laws), we wouldn't have proprietary software!
What I mean is that Microsoft stepped in and set the tone with assumptions of "oh well it's okay to step all over and ignore the terms of the commons when we ingest them into the model, we would be upset if this happened to our stuff though"... for Microsoft, semi theoretical, but Disney and the record industries have actually done this: they're using AI for some projects, but also suing that their copyrights have been violated.
Copyright for me but not for thee type stuff.
(Which I know we agree about as a concern in this landscape.)
Well, here's the thing on this, and precisely why I hate the bull
“copyleft is *only* a license, never a contract” rhetoric that exists in some circles:Most of Microsoft's proprietary licenses aren't rooted in trade secret, or trademark, or copyright, or patents. They are rooted in a *contractual agreement* that you make via a web-click or shrink-wrap opening.
Fortunately, the rhetoric is wrong and copyleft licenses are contracts, AFAIK.
IANAL and TINLA.
Cc: @copiesofcopies
-
I expect the world looks very different from where you’re sitting than from where I am. Every time I look at my (FOSS-heavy) fedi feed, I’m struck by the contrast between the AI pessimism & skepticism here versus everywhere else I look.
LLMs have become part of everyday life for vast swaths of ordinary people. Skilled software developers routinely use them to produce code that’s far from slop. And probably most importantly, the AI industry is widely viewed as the most significant driver of U.S. economic growth and competitive advantage going right now.
All of those things surely sound negative to you, but they’re descriptively true. And against that backdrop, I see very little possibility that US courts will cut OpenAI et al off at the knees, even though we’ll surely see adverse rulings in cases of obvious misappropriation (Anthropic’s trove of pirated books, Sora reproducing entire songs from its training data).
We are more in agreement than you realize:
I guess now is a good as time as any to “come out”: I'm using #Anthropic's #Claude on a regular basis to help me figure out what types of policies we should set for reasonable & ethical use of #LLMGenAI in #FOSS, & also to actually improve FOSS codebases.
I believe it is reasonable to use proprietary technologies as long as our eyes remain on the prize of defeating those technologies.
@cwebber, I suspect, doesn't agree.
-
I expect the world looks very different from where you’re sitting than from where I am. Every time I look at my (FOSS-heavy) fedi feed, I’m struck by the contrast between the AI pessimism & skepticism here versus everywhere else I look.
LLMs have become part of everyday life for vast swaths of ordinary people. Skilled software developers routinely use them to produce code that’s far from slop. And probably most importantly, the AI industry is widely viewed as the most significant driver of U.S. economic growth and competitive advantage going right now.
All of those things surely sound negative to you, but they’re descriptively true. And against that backdrop, I see very little possibility that US courts will cut OpenAI et al off at the knees, even though we’ll surely see adverse rulings in cases of obvious misappropriation (Anthropic’s trove of pirated books, Sora reproducing entire songs from its training data).
@copiesofcopies @bkuhn @cwebber evidence would indicate that pessimism on AI is the norm at this point. Studies show massive unpopularity of AI. People are trying to shoot folks that build AI data centers.
It's not the same pessimism but there's sure a lot of it.
-
@copiesofcopies @bkuhn @cwebber evidence would indicate that pessimism on AI is the norm at this point. Studies show massive unpopularity of AI. People are trying to shoot folks that build AI data centers.
It's not the same pessimism but there's sure a lot of it.
@wwahammy makes a really good point, though. I think *outside of tech*, the response to LLM-gen-AI is very negative as companies inappropriately apply it to non-tech fields. At least that's what I see anecdotally with folks who don't work in tech.
The one exception I've seen is both human doctors & veterinarians — all of whom seem to be thrilled to let #LLMGenAI chart for them.
I give our vet permission to record the session but not my human doctor, FWIW.
-
@wwahammy makes a really good point, though. I think *outside of tech*, the response to LLM-gen-AI is very negative as companies inappropriately apply it to non-tech fields. At least that's what I see anecdotally with folks who don't work in tech.
The one exception I've seen is both human doctors & veterinarians — all of whom seem to be thrilled to let #LLMGenAI chart for them.
I give our vet permission to record the session but not my human doctor, FWIW.
@bkuhn @copiesofcopies @cwebber I think there are a smattering of use-cases that average folks like:
* Similar to your examples, for first pass notes of a low stakes meeting, it's pretty good.
* Getting a quick answer to easy questions. Sure,it's often wrong but no one is living or dying based on the result.
* Editor for writing. I wish people didn't use it as much but if you're looking for some stylistic help, it's not bad.
* It's not near as common as the other three but vibe coding little projects is also up there.There are downsides to all of those but they have something in common: they're low risk and they're situations where the individual is in control.
If that was the end of it, AI would be relatively popular.
-
@cwebber @bkuhn @trashheap IMO the real challenge to FOSS enforcement against LLM producers is the same one everyone else has: if the training is fair use because the resulting model is transformative, the producer doesn’t need a license (and doesn’t have to respect the terms of any existing license). It’s still early early days in terms of court decisions, but this looks like the direction we’re headed in the US (though the outcome will likely vary depending on how much memorization a model can be shown to do).
@copiesofcopies @cwebber @bkuhn @trashheap Compiling code is transformative too. Does it matter if I store your plain text in ASCII format or in lossy floating point format on the disk? Obviously the transformation to floating point is fair use since the floating point blob is learning from the input. What if I chain a bunch of find, grep and sed commands and pipe the output into a different file? Is the output of this chain even copyrightable?
-
@copiesofcopies @cwebber @bkuhn @trashheap Compiling code is transformative too. Does it matter if I store your plain text in ASCII format or in lossy floating point format on the disk? Obviously the transformation to floating point is fair use since the floating point blob is learning from the input. What if I chain a bunch of find, grep and sed commands and pipe the output into a different file? Is the output of this chain even copyrightable?
While IANAL and TINLA, my understanding that indeed the compiled version of source code requires copyright permission to create/distribute/etc. because it derives from the source code.
I think on the other items you raised, basically "no one knows". New frontiers of technology often don't fit existing policy and regulatory frameworks precisely and the regulation lags decades (and sometimes a generation!).
-
@bkuhn @copiesofcopies @cwebber I think there are a smattering of use-cases that average folks like:
* Similar to your examples, for first pass notes of a low stakes meeting, it's pretty good.
* Getting a quick answer to easy questions. Sure,it's often wrong but no one is living or dying based on the result.
* Editor for writing. I wish people didn't use it as much but if you're looking for some stylistic help, it's not bad.
* It's not near as common as the other three but vibe coding little projects is also up there.There are downsides to all of those but they have something in common: they're low risk and they're situations where the individual is in control.
If that was the end of it, AI would be relatively popular.
@wwahammy wrote:
> “If that was the end of it, AI would be relatively popular.”*That* part is not new. Every technology invented in our lifetimes has been overhyped, overdeployed, & overused to its illogical conclusion. While that's happening ∃ (fortunately) some folks along the way who will say the Emperor is only half-dressed.
It's years later that people just quietly pretend they weren't taken in by the foolishness of the new and shiny.
Think “blockchain”!
-
While IANAL and TINLA, my understanding that indeed the compiled version of source code requires copyright permission to create/distribute/etc. because it derives from the source code.
I think on the other items you raised, basically "no one knows". New frontiers of technology often don't fit existing policy and regulatory frameworks precisely and the regulation lags decades (and sometimes a generation!).
@bkuhn @yo8rzz @cwebber @trashheap
“Transformative” in the context of fair use doesn’t necessarily follow the word’s colloquial meaning. A work is transformative with respect to another if it adds “new expression, meaning, or message” to the original work. Compilation is more like translation, which is not considered transformative—a translation is a derivative work that must be licensed.
Ultimately though, this situation was arrived at not through careful reasoning about definitions but through court cases presenting specific facts before specific judges. So object code is basically deemed the same work as source code as a matter of law, and how we arrived there has nothing to do with the definition of “transformative.” It’s just the way the cookie crumbled.
-
We are more in agreement than you realize:
I guess now is a good as time as any to “come out”: I'm using #Anthropic's #Claude on a regular basis to help me figure out what types of policies we should set for reasonable & ethical use of #LLMGenAI in #FOSS, & also to actually improve FOSS codebases.
I believe it is reasonable to use proprietary technologies as long as our eyes remain on the prize of defeating those technologies.
@cwebber, I suspect, doesn't agree.
@bkuhn @copiesofcopies While I appreciate being forthcoming, you are correct, I don't agree with feeding the torment nexus to defeat the torment nexus. I think using Claude is just helping them build more torment nexus, while normalize a situation that puts us in a legally dubious situation where we were previously relatively legally strong, and eroding community trust and shared understanding in the process.
-
@bkuhn @copiesofcopies While I appreciate being forthcoming, you are correct, I don't agree with feeding the torment nexus to defeat the torment nexus. I think using Claude is just helping them build more torment nexus, while normalize a situation that puts us in a legally dubious situation where we were previously relatively legally strong, and eroding community trust and shared understanding in the process.
@bkuhn @copiesofcopies I think the situation is more acceptable when using fully "local models", it doesn't erase all the concerns, but it at least improves user agency and autonomy. But overall, "local models" are mostly for "localwashing"; people like to bring them up as an alternative that nobody uses. Likewise, using LLMs to *find problems*, I don't have a problem with; search-space usage is one thing, but generative is another, in terms of social impact.
I also think that there are ways to improve the reliability of these systems, make them cheaper, and understandability of what they are doing, with neurosymbolic approaches, but that work hasn't advanced yet, and the current situation is pretty dismal. I really don't believe that we can vibe our way out of this mess, and I'm afraid we're going to see important projects, including Linux, head down the vibe bobsled https://dustycloud.org/blog/faulty-towers-vibe-sickness-and-the-vibe-bobsled/
-
@bkuhn @copiesofcopies I think the situation is more acceptable when using fully "local models", it doesn't erase all the concerns, but it at least improves user agency and autonomy. But overall, "local models" are mostly for "localwashing"; people like to bring them up as an alternative that nobody uses. Likewise, using LLMs to *find problems*, I don't have a problem with; search-space usage is one thing, but generative is another, in terms of social impact.
I also think that there are ways to improve the reliability of these systems, make them cheaper, and understandability of what they are doing, with neurosymbolic approaches, but that work hasn't advanced yet, and the current situation is pretty dismal. I really don't believe that we can vibe our way out of this mess, and I'm afraid we're going to see important projects, including Linux, head down the vibe bobsled https://dustycloud.org/blog/faulty-towers-vibe-sickness-and-the-vibe-bobsled/
@bkuhn @copiesofcopies
I think we should be pushing back on these things. I'm worried and dissappointed that FOSS leadership isn't. I'm really worried we might never recover from the damage that's already been done.
