Yeah the timeframe is crucial here. The experiment began as Trump launched his tariff tweets which caused a huge downward correction and then a large uptrend. Buying almost anything tech at the start of this would have made money.
Thinking on though, if the models are trained on any GPL code then one could consider that they contain that GPL code, and are constantly and continually updating and modifying that code, thus everything the model subsequently outputs and distributes should come under the GPL too. It’s far from sufficient that, say, OpenAI have a page on their website to redistribute the code they consume in their models if such code becomes part of the model’s training data that is resident in memory every time it produces new code for users. In the spirit of the GPL all that derivative code seems to also come under the GPL, and has to be made available for free, even if upon every request the generated code is somehow novel or unique to that user.
If the LLM can reproduce the entire GPL'd code, with licence and attribution intact, then that would satisfy the GPL, correct?
If the LLM can invent new code, inspired by but not copied from the GPL'd code, that new code does not require a GPL licence.
This is essentially the same as we humans do: I read some GPL code and go "huh, neat architecture!" and then a year later solve a similar problem using an architecture inspired by that code. This is not copying, and does not require me to GPL the code I'm producing.
But if I copy-paste a function from the GPL code into my code base, I need to respect the licence conditions and GPL at least part of my code base.
I think the argument that the author is talking about is if the model itself should be GPL'd because it contains copies of GPL'd code that can be reproduced. I don't buy this because that GPL code is not being run as part of the model's functioning. To use an analogy: if I create a code storage system, and then use it to store some GPL code, I don't have to GPL the code storage system itself. As long as it can reproduce the GPL code together with its licence and attribution, then the GPL is not being infringed at any point. The system is not using or running the GPL code itself, it is just storing the GPL code. This is what the LLM is doing.
> Thinking on though, if the models are trained on any GPL code then one could consider that they contain that GPL code, and are constantly and continually updating and modifying that code, thus everything the model subsequently outputs and distributes should come under the GPL too.
If you ask a model to output a task scheduler in C, and the training data contained a GPL-licensed implementation of the Fibonacci function in Haskell, the output isn't likely to bear a lot of resemblance to that input. It might even be unrelated enough that adding that function to the training data doesn't affect what the model outputs for that prompt at all.
The nasty thing in terms using code generated by these things is that if you ask the model to output a task scheduler in C and the training data contained a GPL-licensed implementation of a task scheduler in C, the output plausibly could bear a strong resemblance to that input. Without you knowing that. And then if you go incorporate that into something you're redistributing, what happens?
fundemental architecture of networks, compilers, disk operating systems, databases and more are implemented in GPL family LICENSE code; high value targets to acquire and master.
I lived in Australia for a while, and the political system seemed like it was mostly just for show to a greater extent than anywhere else I’ve ever been. In the mould of “whoever you vote for, the government always gets in”. And any big actual decisions where they deem fit to have a referendum such as the change to a Republic in 1999 or the Aboriginal Voice (would have been completely meaningless and powerless anyway), gets nerfed and purposefully mishandled and obfuscated so the status quo remains as it was.
Well I had never heard “whoever you vote for, the government always gets in” but it perfectly sums up Aussie politics, you're spot on, it's a power sharing agreement between two right of centre status quo preservationists.
Slashdot was the shiznitt back in the day of ye olde web. Great submissions and great personality amongst the admins and commenters. On occasions when I’ve brought that attitude here I’ve been slapped down by dang…
It certainly had an impression on me in my younger days -- moving over to Firefox and later messing around with Knoppix and becoming an open source geek probably stemmed in large part from seeing all the "Install Linux, problem solved" memes.
That’s the whole point though - it’s a cohort of your peers who are regular normal people who really aren’t trained being guided by the available evidence presented by those who are trained. There should be enough evidence of your guilt to convince 12 of them that you committed the crime, rather than the state and the feudal lord saying you did it and locking you up forever.
16 year olds have just been given the vote by the Labour government in an attempt to shore up their support because they’re going to lose the next election. Lowering the power of my vote as an adult taxpayer by enfranchising teenagers who get their political nous from TikTok is pretty disgusting.
A lot of public law jurisdictions don’t have jury trials, just a judge who decides the facts based on the constitution and the case presented by the prosecutor. Finland, for example.
