I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam website with Claude

Would we use the same word if two different humans wrote code that solved two different problems, but one part of each problem was somewhat analogous to a different aspect of a third human's problem, and the third human took inspiration from those parts of both solutions to create code that solved a third problem?

What if it were ten different humans writing ten different-but-related pieces of code, and an eleventh human piecing them together? What if it were 1,000 different humans?

I think "plagiarism", "inspiration", and just "learning from" fall on some continuous spectrum. There are clear differences when you zoom out, but they are in degree, and it's hard to set a hard boundary. The key is just to make sure we have laws and norms that provide sufficient incentive for new ideas to continue to be created.

Programmers are not expected to add an addendum to every file listing all the books, articles, and conversations they've had that have influenced the particular code solution. LLMs are trained on far more sources that influence their code suggestions, but it seems like we actually want a higher standard of attribution because they (arguably) are incapable of original thought.

Maybe we could resolve the bit of a conundrum by the op in requiring 'agents' to give credit for things if they did rag them or pull them off the web?

It still doesn't resolve the 'inherent learning' problem.

It's reasonable to suggest that if 'one person did it, we should give credit' - at least in some cases, and also reasonable that if 1K people have done similar things ad the AI learns from that, well, I don't think credit is something that should apply.

But a couple of considerations:

- It may not be that common for an LLM to 'see one thing one time' and then have such an accurate assessment of the solution. It helps, but LLMs tend not to 'learn' things that way.

- Some people might consider this the OSS dream - any code that's public is public and it's in the public domain. We don't need to 'give credit' to someone because they solved something relatively arbitrary - or - if they are concerned with that, then we can have a separate mechanism for that, aka they can put it on Github or Wikipedia even, and then we can worry about 'who thought of it first' as a separate consideration. But in terms of Engineering application, that would be a bit of a detractor.

This isn't just giving credit; it's valuable documentation.

If you're later looking at this function and find a bug or want to modify it, the original source might not have the bug, might have already fixed it, or might have additional functionality that is useful when you copy it to a third location that wasn't necessary in the first copy.

It's also fun to tell Copilot that the code will violate a license. It will seemingly always tell you it's fine. Safe legal advice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9huNI5sBd8

1) Verbatin copy is first-order plagiarism.

2a) Second-order plagiarism of written text would be replacing words with synonyms. Or taking a book paragraph by paragraph and for each one of them, rephrasing it in your own words. Yes, it might fool automated checkers but the structure would still be a copy of the original book. And most importantly, it would not contain any new information. No new positive-sum work was done. It would have no additional value.

Before LLMs almost nobody did this because the chance that it would help in a lawsuit vs the amount of work was not a good tradeoff. Now it is. But LLMs can do "better":

2b) A different kind of second-order plagiarism is using multiple sources and plagiarizing each of them only in part. Find multiple books on the same topic, take 1 chapter from each and order them in a coherent manner. Make it more granular. Find paragraphs or phrases which fit into the structure of your new book but are verbatim from other books. See how granular you can make it.

The trick here is that doing this by hand is more work than just writing your own book. So nobody did it and copyright law does not really address this well. But with LLMs, it can be automated. You can literally instruct an LLM to do this and it will do it cheaper than any human could. However, how LLMs work internally is yet different:

n) Higher-order plagiarism is taking multiple source books, identifying patterns, and then reproducing them in your "new" book.

If the patterns are sufficiently complex, nobody will ever be able to prove what specifically you did. What previously took creative human work now became a mechanical transformation of input data.

The point is this ability to detect and reproduce patterns is an impressive innovation but it's built on top of the work of hundreds of millions[0] of humans whose work was used without consent. The work done by those employed by the LLM companies is minuscule compared to that. Yet all of the reward goes to them.

Not to mention LLMs completely defear the purpose of (A)GPL. If you can take AGPL code and pass it through a sufficiently complex mechanical transformation that the output does the same thing but copyright no longer applies, then free software is dead. No more freedom to inspect and modify.

[0]: Github alone has 100 million users ( https://expandedramblings.com/index.php/github-statistics/ ) and we have reason to believe all of their data was used in training.

I think it should.

Sure, if you make a small amount of money and divide it among the 1000 people who deserve credit due to their work being used to create ("train") the model, it might be too small to bother.

But if actual AGI is achieved, then it has nearly infinite value. If said AGI is built on top of the work of the 1000 people, then almost infinity divided by 1000 is still a lot of money.

Of course, the real numbers are way larger, LLMs were trained on the work of at least 100M but perhaps over a billion of people. But the value they provide over a long enough timespan is also claimed to be astronomical (evidenced by the valuations of those companies). It's not just their employees who deserve a cut but everyone whose work was used to train them.

> Some people might consider this the OSS dream

I see the opposite. Code that was public but protected by copyleft can now be reused in private/proprietary software. All you need to do it push it through enough matmuls and some nonlinearities.

As for your free software is dead argument: I think it is worse than that: it takes away the one payment that free software authors get: recognition. If a commercial entity can take the code, obfuscate it and pass it off as their own copyrighted work to then embrace and extend it then that is the worst possible outcome.

Good point. Reminds me of how if you poison one person, you go to prison, but when a company poisons thousands, it gets a fine... sometimes.

> it takes away the one payment that free software authors get: recognition

I keep flip-flopping on this. I did most of my open source work not caring about recognition but about the principles of GPL and later AGPL. However, I came to realize it was a mistake - people don't judge you by the work you actually do but by the work you appear to do. I have zero respect for people who do something just for the approval of others but I am aware of the necessity of making sure people know your value.

One thing is certain: credit/recognition affect all open source code, user rights (e.g. to inspect and modify) affect only the subset under (A)GPL.

Both are bad in their own right.

Indeed, and up until the advent of 'AI' we did. But that incentive is being killed right now and I don't see any viable replacement on the horizon.

Perfectly embodies the AI "startup" mentality. Nice.. /s

> What previously took creative human work now became a mechanical transformation of input data.

At which point I find myself wondering if there's actually a problem. If it was previously permitted due to the presence of creative input, why should automating that process change the legal status? What justifies treating human output differently?

> then free software is dead. No more freedom to inspect and modify.

It seems to me that depends on the ideological framing. Consider a (still entirely hypothetical) world where anyone can receive approximately any software they wish with little more than a Q&A session with an expert AI agent. Rather than free software being dead, such a scenario would appear to obviate the vast majority of needs that free software sets out to serve in the first place.

It seems a bit like worrying that free access to a comprehensive public transportation service would kill off a ride sharing service. It probably would, and the end result would also probably be a net benefit to humanity.

That scenario is already today very well accepted legally and morally etc as public domain.

- Copyleft is not OSS, it's a tiny variation of it, which is both highly ideological and impractical. Less than 2% of OSS projects are copyleft. It's a legit perspective obviously, but it hasn't bee representative for 20 years.

Whatever we do with AI, we already have a basic understanding of public domain, at least we can start from there.

> [i want to] shake thinking that is profoundly stuck [because they] aren’t able to see past the assumptions they don’t know they making

what is profoundly stuck, and what are the assumptions?

Copyright law... automated transformation preserves copyright. It makes the output a derivative of the input.

Human time is inherently valuable, computer time is not.

One angle:

The real issue is how this is made possible. Imagine an AI being created by a lone genius or a team of really good programmers and researchers by sitting down and just writing the code. From today's POV, it would be almost unimaginably impressive but that is how most people envisioned AI being created a few decades ago (and maybe as far as 5 years ago). These people would obviously deserve all the credit for their invaluable work and all the income from people using their work. (At least until another team does the same, then it's competition as normal.)

But that's not how AI is being created. What the programmers and researchers really do it create a highly advanced lossy compression algorithm which then takes nearly all publicly available human knowledge (disregarding licenses/consent) and creates a model of it which can reproduce both the first-order data (duh) and the higher-order patterns in it (cool). Do they still deserve all the credit and all the income? What if there's 1k researchers and programmers working on the compression algorithm (= training algorithm) and 1B people whose work ("content") is compressed by it (= used to train it). I will freely admit that the work done to build the algorithm is higher skilled than most of the work done by the 1B people. Maybe even 10x or 100x more expensive. But if you multiply those numbers (1k * 100 vs 1B), you have to come to the conclusion that the 1B people deserve the vast majority of the credit and the vast majority of the income generated by the combined work. (And notice when another team creates a competing model based on the same data, the share by the 1B stays the same and the 1k have to compete for their fraction.)

Another angle:

If you read a book, learn something from it and then apply the knowledge to make money, you currently don't pay a share to the author of the book. But you paid a fixed price for the book, hopefully. We could design a system where books are available for free, we determine how much the book helped you make that money, and you pay a proportional share to the author. This is not as entirely crazy as it might sound. When you cause an injury to someone, a court will determine how much each party involved is liable and there are complex rules (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_and_several_liability) determining the subsequent exchange of money. We could in theory do the same for material you learn from (though the fractions would probably be smaller than 1%). We don't because it would be prohibitively time consuming, very invasive, and often unprovable unless you (accidentally) praise a specific blog post or say you learned a technique from a book. Instead, we use this thing called market capitalism where the author sets a price and people either buy the book or not (depending on whether they think it's worth it for them), some of them make no money as a result, some make a lot, and we (choose to) believe that in aggregate, the author is fairly compensated.

Even if your blog is available for anyone to read freely, you get compensated in alternative ways by people crediting you and/or by building an audience you can influence to a degree.

With LLMs, there is no way to get the companies training the models to credit you or build you an audience. And even if they pay for the books they use for training, I don't believe they pay enough. The price was determined before the possibility of LLM training was known to the author and the value produced by a sufficiently sophisticated AI, perhaps AGI (which they openly claim to want to create) is effectively unlimited. The only way to compensate authors fairly is to periodically evaluate how much revenue the model attracted and pay a dividend to the authors as long as that model continues to be used.

Best of all, unlike with humans, the inner workings of a computer model, even a very complex one, can be analyzed in their entirety. So it should be possible to track (fractional) attribution throughout the whole process. There's just no incentive for the companies to invest into the tooling.

---

> approximately any software they wish with little more than a Q&A session with an expert AI agent

Making software is not just about writing code, it's about making decisions. Not just understanding problem and designing a solution but also picking tradeoffs and preferences.

I don't think most people are gonna do this just like most people today don't go to a program's settings and tweak every slider/checkbox/dropdown to their liking. They will at most say they want something exactly like another program with a few changes. And then it's clearly based on that original program and all the work performed to find out the users' preferences/likes/dislikes/workflows which remain unchanged.

But even if they genuinely recreate everything, then if it's done by an LLM, it's still based on work of others as per the argument above.

---

> the end result would also probably be a net benefit to humanity.

Possibly. But in the case of software fully written by sufficiently advanced LLMs, that net benefit would be created only by using the work of a hundred million or possibly a billion of people for free and without (quite often against) their consent.

Forced work without compensation is normally called slavery. (The only difference is that our work has already been done and we're "only" forced to not be able to prevent LLM companies from using it despite using licenses which by their intent and by the logic above absolutely should.)

The real question is how to achieve this benefit without exploiting people.

And don't forget such a model will not be offered for free to everyone as a public good. Not even to those people whose data was used to train it. It will be offered as a paid service. And most of the revenue won't even go to the researchers and programmers who worked on the model directly and who made it possible. It will go to the people who contributed the least (often zero) technical work.

---

This comment (and its GP), which contains arguments I have not seen anywhere else, was written over an hour long train ride. I could have instead worked remotely to make more than enough money to pay for the train ride. Instead, I write this training data which will be compressed and some patterns from it reproduced, allowing people I will never know and who will never know me to make an amount of money I have no chance quantifying and get nothing from. Now, I have to work some other hour to pay for the train ride. Make of that what you will.

A meta-comment:

I absolutely love your attention to detail in this discussion and avoiding taking 'the easy way out' from some of the more hairy concept embedded. This is exactly the kind of interaction that I love HN for, and it is interesting how this thread seems to bring out the best in you at the same time that it seems to bring out the worst in others.

Most likely they are responding as strongly as they do because they've bought into this matter to a degree that they are passing off works that they did not create as their own novel output, they got paid for it and they - like a religious person - are now so invested in this that it became their crutch and a part of their identity.

If you have another train ride to make I'd love for you to pick apart that argument and to refute it.

What if it was just a single person? I take it you didn't read any of the code in the ocaml vibe pr that was posted a bit ago? The one where Claude copied non just implementation specifics, but even the copyright headers from a named, specific person.

It's clear that you can have no idea if the magic black box is copying from a single source, or from many.

So your comment boils down to; plagiarism is fine as long as I don't have to think about it. Are you really arguing that's ok?

It's a tool to incentivse human creative expression.

Thus it's entirely sensible to consider and treat the output from computers and humans differently.

Especially when you consider large differences between computers and humans, such as how trivial it is to create perfect duplicates of computer training.

It is actually worse: plagiarism is fine if I'm shielded from such claims by using a digital mixer. When criminals use crypto tumblers to hide their involvement we tend to see that as proof of intent, not as absolution.

LLMs are copyright tumblers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptocurrency_tumbler

Previously there was no way for a machine to do large swaths of things that have now recently become possible. Thus a law predicated on the assumption that a machine can't do certain things might need to be revisited.

I think it's worth remembering that IP law is generally viewed (at least legally) as existing for the net benefit of society as opposed to for ethical reasons. Certainly many authors feel like they have (or ought to have) some moral right to control their work but I don't believe that was ever the foundation of IP law.

Nor do I think it should be! If we are to restrict people's actions (ex copying) then it should be for a clear and articulable net societal benefit. The value proposition of IP law is that it prevents degenerate behavior that would otherwise stifle innovation. My question is thus, how do these AI developments fit into that?

So I completely agree that (for example) laundering a full work more or less verbatim through an AI should not be permissible. But when it comes to the higher order transformations and remixes that resemble genuine human work I'm no longer certain. I definitely don't think that "human exceptionalism" makes for a good basis either legally or ethically.

Regarding FOSS licenses, I'm again asking how AI relates back to the original motivations. Why does FOSS exist in the first place? What is it trying to accomplish? A couple ideological motivations that come to mind are preventing someone building on top and then profiting, or ensuring user freedom and ability to tinker.

Yes, the current crop of AI tools seem to pose an ideological issue. However! That's only because the current iteration can't truly innovate and also (as you note) the process still requires lots of painstaking human input. That's a far cry from the hypothetical that I previously posed.

There's 8B people on the planet, probably ~100M can code to some degree[0]. Something only 1k people write is actually pretty rare.

Where would you draw the line? How many out of how many?

If I take a leaked bit of Google or MS or, god forbid, Oracle code and manage to find a variation of each small block in a few other projects, does it mean I can legally take the leaked code and use it for free?

Do you even realize to what lengths the tech companies went just a few years ago to protect their IP? People who ever even glanced at leaked code were prohibited from working on open source reimplementations.

> That scenario is already today very well accepted legally and morally etc as public domain.

1) Public domain is a legal concept, it has 0 relevance to morality.

2) Can you explain how you think this works? Can a person's work just automatically become public domain somehow by being too common?

> Copyleft is not OSS, it's a tiny variation of it, which is both highly ideological and impractical.

This sentence seems highly ideological. Linux is GPL, in fact, probably most SW on my non-work computer is GPL. It is very practical and works much better than commercial alternatives for me.

> Less than 2% of OSS projects are copyleft.

Where did you get this number? Using search engines, I get 20-30%.

[0]: It's the number of github users, though there's reportedly only ~25M professional SW devs, many more people can code but don't professionaly.

There have been previous tech revolutions but they were based on independent innovation.

> Thus a law predicated on the assumption that a machine can't do certain things might need to be revisited.

Perhaps using copyright law for software and other engineering work might have been a mistake but it worked to a degree me and most devs were OK with.

Sidenote: There is no _one_ copyright law. IANAL but reportedly, for example datasets are treated differently in the US vs EU, with greater protection for the work that went into creating a database in the EU. And of course, China does what is best for China at a given moment.

There's 2 approaches:

1) Either we follow the current law. Its spirit and (again IANAL) probably the letter says that mechanical transformation preserves copyright. Therefore the LLMs and their output must be licensed under the same license as the training data (if all the training data use compatible licenses) or are illegal (if they mixed incompatible licenses). The consequence is that very roughly a) most proprietary code cannot be used for training, b) using only permissive code gives you a permissively licensed model and output and c) permissive and copyleft code can be combined, as long as the resulting model and output is copyleft. It still completely ignores attribution though but this is a compromise I would at least consider being OK with.

(But if I don't get even credit for 10 years of my free work being used to build this innovation, then there should be a limit on how much the people building the training algorithms get out of it as well.)

2) We design a new law. Legality and morality are, sadly, different and separate concepts. Now, call me a naive sucker, but I think legality should try to approximate morality as closely as possible, only deviating due to the real-world limitations of provability. (E.g. some people deserve to die but the state shouldn't have the right to kill them because the chance of error is unacceptably high.) In practice, the law is determined by what the people writing it can get away with before the people forced to follow it revolt. I don't want a revolution, but I think for example a bloody revolution is preferable to slavery.

Either way, there are established processes for handling both violations of laws and for writing new laws. This should not be decided by private for-profit corporations seeing whether they can get away with it scot-free or trembling that they might have to pay a fine which is a near-zero fraction of their revenue, with almost universally no repercussions for their owners.

"Can you explain how you think this works? Can a person's work just automatically become public domain somehow by being too common?"

Please ask ChatGPT for the breakdown but start with this: if someone writes something and does not copyright it, it's already in the 'public domain' and what the other 999 people do does not matter. Moreover, a lot of things are not copyrightable in the first place.

FYI I've worked at Fortune 50 Tech Companies, with 'Legal' and I know how sensitive they are - this is not a concern for them.

It's not a concern for anyone.

'One Person' reproduction -> now that is definitely a concern. That's what this is all about.

+ For OSS I think 20% number may come from those that are explicitly licensed. Out of 'all repos' it's a very tiny amount, of those that have specific licensing details it's closer to 20%. You can verify this yourself just by cruising repos. The breakdown could be different for popular projects, but in the context of AI and IP rights we're more concerned about 'small entities' being overstepped as the more institutional entities may have recourse and protections.

I think the way this will play out is if LLMs are producing material that could be considered infringing, then they'll get sued. If they don't - they won't.

And that's it.

It's why they don't release the training data - it's fully of stuff that is in legal grey area.

I've heard about it in the past, never really looked into what it is. It's now in my to-read list so I'll hope to potentially read about it this century...

> I absolutely love your attention to detail

Thanks. I've been thinking about this for almost two years and my position seems like it should be the obvious position for anyone who takes time to understand what is happening with this tech, both technologically and politically. Yet, a lot of people seem to be supportive, oblivious to the both the exploitation already happening and the coming consequences.

So I try to articulate this position as best as I can in hopes that I can convince at least a few people. And if they do the same, maybe we can have some impact. TBH, I am using HN as a proving ground for how to phrase ideas. Sadly, people react to the way something is written, not what is written. So even supporting a good idea can actually harm it if phrased poorly.

I started a blog and and wanted to write about tech but this IP theft ramped up before I finished my first real article and after that I didn't feel like pouring my energy into something which will be scraped and stripped of any connection to me just to make some rich asshole richer. I figured people are gonna come to their senses but most are indifferent or have accepted the reality, with a loud minority cheering for it. Probably because finally they're not the ones with a boot on their neck, it's the pesky white collar programmers and artists who had a good life through nothing more than lucky genetics which made them smart. I mean, I am already noticing some people who used to ask me for tech advice are starting to treat me differently since I am not longer useful (unless some super obscure bug hasn't made it into the training data), therefore no longer valuable to them.

Society is built on hierarchical power structures where each upper layer maintains or further entrenches their position by making people on the lower layers fight each other, sometimes literally.

WW1 was the peak of _visible_ human stupidity and submissivity with random people killing each other by the tens of thousands a day and not a single one of them stood anything to gain from "winning". For most men, when they're given a rifle, they have the most power they will have their entire life. Yet, they chose indirect suicide over direct murder. (Murder being a legal term, is carries no judgement of the morality of the act. I used it because "murder" is what opting out of this system would have been called by the people in power. Or "treason" if it had any chance of success. Or "revolution" if enough people did it.)

Since then, the power structures have evolved, the innovation is that fighting among us "commoners" is no longer so spectacularly visible.

So I gotta do something. These comments have almost 0 reach but they allow me to organize the ideas in my head and hopefully I'll bring myself to write proper blog posts. They'll also have almost 0 reach but it'll hopefully be a bit further from 0.

I have a lot of ideas and opinions which I have never heard expressed anywhere else. Certainly, I can't be that unique and many people must have through them or even written about them before but it's nearly impossible to find anything.

---

> the best in you

This is probably not the kind of reply you meant when you wrote that, I rant when I am tired.

---

Anyway, I added my blog to my profile. There's nothing of value there, I spent a decade reading about tech, excited for the bright future to come, and talking about starting my own tech blog. And right as I finally did, LLMs happened and that was the event which made me realize tech is just another tool of oppression and exploitation. Not that it wasn't before but I was naive and stupid and this was the event which catalyzed a large rethinking for me, personally. So if you wanna read something from me in the future, the RSS hopefully works.