←back to thread

Using LLMs at Oxide

(rfd.shared.oxide.computer)
694 points steveklabnik | 1 comments | 07 Dec 25 01:17 UTC | HN request time: 0.194s | source
Show context
csb6 ◴[07 Dec 25 06:11 UTC] No.46179547[source]▶
Strange to see no mention of potential copyright violations found in LLM-generated code (e.g. LLMs reproducing code from Github verbatim without respecting the license). I would think that would be a pretty important consideration for any software development company, especially one that produces so much free software.
replies(4): >>46179678 #>>46179797 #>>46179941 #>>46188231 #
fastball ◴[07 Dec 25 07:35 UTC] No.46179941[source]▶
Has anything like this worked its way through the courts yet?
replies(1): >>46180382 #
adastra22 ◴[07 Dec 25 09:30 UTC] No.46180382[source]▶
Yes, training is considered fair use, and output is non-copyrightable / public domain. With many asterix and footnotes, of course.
replies(1): >>46180409 #
Madmallard ◴[07 Dec 25 09:35 UTC] No.46180409[source]▶
Don't see how output being public domain makes sense when they could be outputting copyrighted code.

Shouldn't the right's extend forward and simply require the LLM code to be deleted?

replies(2): >>46180495 #>>46180516 #
1. menaerus ◴[07 Dec 25 09:50 UTC] No.46180495[source]▶
First, you have to prove it that it produced the copyrighted code. The question is what copyrighted code is in the first place? Literal copy-paste from source is easy but I think 99% of the time this isn't the case.