i think the copyright question is still unanswered: it could turn out that any LLM-generated code is a copyright violation by definition unless trained exclusively on a clean, legitimately-obtained dataset (which few of the major models are).

Will projects that allow LLM contributions have to roll back years of progress when the other shoe finally drops? Seems like a huge risk, especially for FOSS and copyleft. I think disallowing LLM-written contributions until this is all sorted out in the courts is the pragmatic move from a legal perspective.

[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (5 children)

i think the copyright question is still unanswered: it could turn out that any LLM-generated code is a copyright violation by definition unless trained exclusively on a clean, legitimately-obtained dataset (which few of the major models are).

I think this argument is BS, there are several remix/sample based albums that count as derived works and AFAIK, no one is getting paid.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Note that the remix/sample example hasn't always worked out as you state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_Sweet_Symphony#Credits_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Sweet_Lord#Copyright_infringement_suit

In many cases, "AFAIK" in your case you may have no idea that in fact, the copyright holder is being paid. Or the copyright holder is one and the same, with rights sometimes assigned to someone other than the musicians involved.

[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#3._Amount_and_substantiality

you wanna make the argument that 5000000 hello world projects are a substantial part of an AI?

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (15 replies)