‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Born Against, or why hobby programming communities are against LLM usage

391 points · 454 comments · lladnar

  1. podgietaru · · focus · HN ↗
    The article just straight up doesn't mention the context of the Github Thread, which is about the guy lifting ideas from other engines and copy-washing them.

    "Do you genuinely believe changes like cd170a4 make the code somehow not derived from Reckless anymore? It appears to me like it's just trying to obfuscate its origins, to make it easier to appeal to plausible deniability. The reality is, coda 100% has code derived from AGPL or unlicensed engines in it, and pretending otherwise won't convince anyone other than maybe yourself. This, combined with the fact you conveniently moved the plagiarism roadmaps to a private repo mere days after people started raising concerns about it, reads to me like you're not at all concerned with actually using code fairly, and much more with being able to claim that you are, backed up by these nonsense "cleanup" commits."

    1. samatman · · focus · HN ↗
      Keeping in mind that I'm going strictly off the commit[0], a bit-packing layout is very much the kind of thing which is not subject to copyright in the first place. Neither are algorithms. Ideas, in general, are not subject to copyright: expression is.

      So "lifting ideas from other engines", as you yourself put it, is entirely licit, no matter how you do it. _Should_ you credit others when so doing? I err on the side of yes, on that question. _Must_ you? No, there is no such requirement, this is not academic publishing. Does it constitute violation of license? Absolutely not. Straightforwardly, no. Furthermore, it _should not_, we would not like the result of that.

      Think: SCO suing Linus Torvalds over his use of a.out: and winning. It would be bad. Even though I understand the reasons for it, it's still eerie to me to see hackers coming down hard on a side of an issue we spend decades passionately defending the other side of.

      As I lead this post with: maybe there's something in the repo which is infringing, it's quite possible that commit doesn't tell the whole story. If so, keep in mind that I don't know that, and am able to change my opinion in the face of new evidence.

      Based on what I _have_ seen, no: you do not get to lock down a bit-packing pattern just because you're the first to come up with it. Nor should you have that right.

      [0]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;adamtwiss&#x2F;coda&#x2F;commit&#x2F;cd170a4ea9993cf82461007656e4a782394c5507" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;adamtwiss&#x2F;coda&#x2F;commit&#x2F;cd170a4ea9993cf8246...

      1. didibus · · focus · HN ↗
        I think that&#x27;s true, but I&#x27;m not sure if this would characterize itself as &quot;lifting ideas&quot;. I mean, it&#x27;s one thing to personally take the idea and re-implement it yourself elsewhere. But I have to believe there could be an argument, that having an inference algorithm take the original source and re-implement it in the context of your engine might count as derivative work.

        A particular work is deliberately supplied at inference time so the system can recreate or adapt it for another environment. It resembles commissioning a translation, port, or derivative adaptation through an automated tool, even where the output is not verbatim, so it seems it could hold a candle in court.

        You have a few scenarios now up for legal debate:

            1. Is training a model using copyrighted material fair use?
    2. A model outputting chunks of identical coryrighted code from it&#x27;s training material
    3. A model being given in it&#x27;s prompt copyrighted source code, and asked to implement the same in a new source code.
        I think #1 and #2 have open legal battles on it, but #3, which seems to be this scenario, is new to me, and I feel it could have legal ground for being considered infringing on the copyright.

        Sidenote: how is your account &quot;samatman&quot; and created &quot;April 24, 2010&quot;, that&#x27;s a really funny coincidence

        1. robinsonb5 · · focus · HN ↗
          Whatever the legal outcome, whether it&#x27;s ultimately decided that people can or can&#x27;t &quot;get away&quot; with using LLMs to license-launder code, it&#x27;s undoubtedly a dick move.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.