HN Explorer

Ask HN: Are AI trained on GPL code subject to the GNU?

7 points by andrewclunn ↗ HN
Because the AI would then be considered to be a derivative of said code, would that then require that resulting trained AI also be readily accessible and (to whatever extent is possible) its source, weights, and bit code made freely available?

12 comments

[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 41.6 ms ] thread
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
samspenc
I am not a lawyer, but I'm wondering if the same argument can be made about derived works such as text - the AI is learning from open-source code, and outputting not the exact same code, but just 'derived' code based on patterns in the original code.

In other words, somewhat similar to what a programmer studying existing and open-source code would do: read the code, understand it, and try to reimplement by writing their own code.

gwnywg
In my uni (and I guess in every other uni) they have a system which detects plagiarised parts of mastery thesis (and other too). My first thought is, would text produced by AI pass that test. And also I guess the same could be done with code (lets say plagiarism test done by independent escrow company)

I remember people claiming things like github copilot were reproducing original code verbatim and this was the main source of concern. I would see this as a problem if my colleagues were copying code as if it was their own.

cjbprime
There are many open questions here. It is unclear that an LLM that has "seen" GPL code is a derived work of that code. Your brain can "see" GPL code without violating the license, even when you later write different code. Redistributing the GPL licensed code that was seen earlier is what would be most obviously infringing.
krapp
The legality of what humans can and cannot do relative to copyright and the infringement thereof does not apply to LLMs, because LLMs are not human beings. An LLM being trained on copyrighted material is not equivalent to a human being seeing or "being influenced by" copyrighted material, because LLMs are not human beings. And even if it could be proven that the methods by which LLMs operate and human brains operate were essentially the same - which as far as I know, it hasn't - there would be no reason to assume the rights and privileges granted to human beings must de facto apply to LLMs, because LLMs are not human beings.
cjbprime
This was a lot of words to say that LLMs aren't human. I agree they aren't human. Why do you think that training on GPL code that the model does not redistribute is a violation of copyright law?
krapp
I don't think it's a violation of copyright law because the GPL, as far as I understand it, gives the humans training the model the right to do so, and as long as they don't redistribute it, I don't have a problem with it. Once that code starts getting distributed, as happens with Copilot, then I think it's a problem.

I'm just pointing out (repetitiously, because arguments of the type "but humans do X" are made all the time with LLMs) that the fact that a human brain doesn't violate copyright when a human reads and studies copyrighted code isn't relevant either way.

cjbprime
I guess I don't agree that the analogy doesn't hold. You agree that the training isn't infringing, but you think my analogy is not the reason why. I think it is the reason why. Use without redistribution is not protected by copyright law; this covers uses by human readers without redistribution, and also use by computer programs without redistribution.
randombits0
AI output is not copyrightable.
Shawnj2
If I trained an LLM on code I wrote and had it write things I would probably be able to copyright it though
randombits0
No, you wouldn’t. Source doesn’t matter. Only the creative expression of humans is copyrightable. You do not own the copyright of the picture your monkey took.