Parts of Debian dismiss AI-contributions policy
Parts of Debian dismiss AI-contributions policy
Posted May 13, 2024 21:39 UTC (Mon) by mirabilos (subscriber, #84359)In reply to: Parts of Debian dismiss AI-contributions policy by mb
Parent article: Debian dismisses AI-contributions policy
Even “mechanical” transformation by humans does not create a work (as defined by UrhG, i.e. copyright). It has to have some creativity.
Until then, it’s a transformation of the original work(s) and therefore bound to the (sum of their) terms and conditions on the original work.
If you have a copyrighted thing, you can print it out, scan it, compress it as JPEG, store it into a database… it’s still just a transformation of the original work, and you can retrieve a sufficiently substantial part of the original work from it.
The article where someone reimplemented a (slightly older version of) ChatGPT in a 498-line PostgreSQL query showed exactly and easily understandable how this is just a lossy compression/decompression: https://explainextended.com/2023/12/31/happy-new-year-15/
There are now feasible attacks obtaining “training data” from prod models in large scale, e.g: https://not-just-memorization.github.io/extracting-training-data-from-chatgpt.html
This is sufficient to prove that these “models” are just databases with lossily compressed, but easily enough accessible, copies of the original, possibly (probably!) copyrighted, works.
Another thing I would like to point out is the relative weight. For a work which I offer to the public under a permissive licence, attribution is basically the only remuneration I can ever get. This means failure to attribute so has a much higher weight than for differently licenced or unlicenced stuff.
Posted May 13, 2024 21:55 UTC (Mon)
by bluca (subscriber, #118303)
[Link] (6 responses)
While the AI bandwagon exaggerates greatly the capability of LLMs, let's not fall into the opposite trap. ChatGPT&al are toys, real applications like Copilot are very much not "just databases". A database is not going to provide you with autocomplete based on the current, local context open in your IDE. A database is not going to provide an accurate summary of the meeting that just finished, with action items and all that.
Posted May 13, 2024 22:20 UTC (Mon)
by mirabilos (subscriber, #84359)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted May 13, 2024 22:44 UTC (Mon)
by bluca (subscriber, #118303)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted May 13, 2024 23:14 UTC (Mon)
by mirabilos (subscriber, #84359)
[Link] (3 responses)
Consider a database in which things are stored lossily compressed and interleaved (yet still retrievable).
Posted May 13, 2024 23:58 UTC (Mon)
by bluca (subscriber, #118303)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted May 14, 2024 0:28 UTC (Tue)
by mirabilos (subscriber, #84359)
[Link] (1 responses)
I don’t have the nerve to even try and communicate with systemd apologists who don’t even do the most basic research themselves WHEN POINTED TO IT M̲U̲L̲T̲I̲P̲L̲E̲ ̲T̲I̲M̲E̲S̲.
Posted May 14, 2024 1:26 UTC (Tue)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link]
That's all participants should stop, not just the one I'm responding to here.
Thank you.
Parts of Debian dismiss AI-contributions policy
Parts of Debian dismiss AI-contributions policy
Parts of Debian dismiss AI-contributions policy
Parts of Debian dismiss AI-contributions policy
Parts of Debian dismiss AI-contributions policy
Parts of Debian dismiss AI-contributions policy
OK, I'll state it more clearly: it's time to bring this thread to a halt, it's not getting anywhere.
Second try