That makes sense. I see the problem with that, and I don’t have a good solution for it. It is a divergence of topic though, as we were discussing open-source programmers using LLMs which are potentially trained on closed-source code.
LLMs trained on open-source code is worth its own discussion, but I don’t see how it fits in this thread. The post isn’t about closed-source programmers using LLMs.
Besides, closed-source code developers could’ve been stealing open-source code all along. They don’t really need AI to do that.
Still, training LLMs on open-source code is a questionable practice for that reason, particularly when it comes to training commercial models on GPL code. But it’s probably hard to prove what code was used in their datasets, since it’s closed-source.
I don’t really see it as a divergence from the topic, since it’s the other side of a developer not being responsible for the code the LLM produces, like you were saying.
In any case, it’s not like conversations can’t drift to adjacent topics.
Besides, closed-source code developers could’ve been stealing open-source code all along. They don’t really need AI to do that.
Yes, but that’s the point of laundering something. Before if you put foss code in your commercial product a human could be deposed in the lawsuit and make it public and then there’s consequences. Now you can openly do so and point at the LLM.
People don’t launder money so they can spend it, they launder money so they can spend it openly.
Regardless, it wasn’t even my comment, I just understood what they were saying and I’ve already replied way out of proportion to how invested I am in the topic.
Conversations can drift to adjacent topics, yeah, but it’s not a “gotcha” when someone suddenly changes the topic to the inverse of what was being said, and then acts like they’re arguing against you because the thing that you said about the original topic doesn’t add up with the new topic.
If you change the topic, you need to at least give the other person an opportunity to respond to your new topic, not just assume that their same argument applies.
Alright. I didn’t see any gotchas or argument, and didn’t make the comment.
That being said, reading the context I assume you’re referring to, it hardly reads like anything more than talking about the implication of the idea you shared.
Disagreeing because applying the argument consistently results in an undesirable outcome isn’t objectionable.
Disagreeing because applying the argument consistently results in an undesirable outcome isn’t objectionable.
I’m not objecting to disagreement, I’m objecting to the attempt to apply my argument to a different situation that it wasn’t meant for, and then going on as if that’s even remotely what I was saying.
That’s not “applying the argument consistently”, it’s removing context, overgeneralizing the argument, and applying a strawman based on a twisted version of it.
Open-source developers using AI trained on closed-source code and closed-source developers using AI trained on open-source code are two different issues. My point was only intended to apply to the former, because that’s what we were talking about. Trying to apply what I said to the former is a distortion of my argument, and not the argument I was making.
And to try to conflate the two is to be allergic to nuance, which is honestly just typical and unsurprising, but if that’s the case then I’m done wasting my time on this conversation.
I’m really not interested in the topic. I’m talking because I explained what someone else meant and you started responding as though that was an opinion or argument I was making.
That’s not “applying the argument consistently”, it’s removing context, overgeneralizing the argument, and applying a strawman based on a twisted version of it.
It’s really not.
It’s not unreasonable for someone to think “developers who use copy written code from AI aren’t liable for infringement” applies to closed source devs as well as open, and to disagree because they don’t like one of those.
It’s perfectly valid for you to also disagree and say the statement shouldn’t apply both ways, but that doesn’t make the other statement somehow a non-sequitor.
If you’re not interested, then why are you still here saying the same thing over and over again?
It’s perfectly fine if someone wants to make a claim that “we should apply the same argument across both situations,” and then I would give my reasoning as to why different arguments apply. But that’s not what happened.
What happened was, I gave an argument applied to the situation being discussed. Someone else tried to apply my argument to a different situation, in order to argue against a point that I didn’t make. And ever since that point, this whole conversation has been going in circles in which you and that other commenter keep arguing as if I’m saying something that I never said, and I keep stating repeatedly that it’s not what I said.
And if you read back through this chain, I never said it. I even said I can understand the other point of view, and would probably even agree with it, if that’s the conversation we were having, and I said we could even have that conversation, but that the sudden change of topic as an attempt to “score points” against me is not a good faith argumentation style.
Is it a problem if commercial LLMs are trained on GPL code, and then used by closed-source developers to generate proprietary code which potentially contains open-source snippets? Yes, I’ve never denied that. But that’s not what this conversation has been about.
From the start, it’s been about open-source developers using LLMs to write open-source code, when those LLMs are potentially trained on closed-source code and may generate snippets closely resembling closed-source code.
Those are fundamentally different situations, and if you can’t see that then I can break it down for you in minute detail. But the point I made about the one thing was never meant to apply to the other; and arguing against the point I made as if it was meant to apply to a different situation is a bad faith argument.
That makes sense. I see the problem with that, and I don’t have a good solution for it. It is a divergence of topic though, as we were discussing open-source programmers using LLMs which are potentially trained on closed-source code.
LLMs trained on open-source code is worth its own discussion, but I don’t see how it fits in this thread. The post isn’t about closed-source programmers using LLMs.
Besides, closed-source code developers could’ve been stealing open-source code all along. They don’t really need AI to do that.
Still, training LLMs on open-source code is a questionable practice for that reason, particularly when it comes to training commercial models on GPL code. But it’s probably hard to prove what code was used in their datasets, since it’s closed-source.
I don’t really see it as a divergence from the topic, since it’s the other side of a developer not being responsible for the code the LLM produces, like you were saying.
In any case, it’s not like conversations can’t drift to adjacent topics.
Yes, but that’s the point of laundering something. Before if you put foss code in your commercial product a human could be deposed in the lawsuit and make it public and then there’s consequences. Now you can openly do so and point at the LLM.
People don’t launder money so they can spend it, they launder money so they can spend it openly.
Regardless, it wasn’t even my comment, I just understood what they were saying and I’ve already replied way out of proportion to how invested I am in the topic.
Conversations can drift to adjacent topics, yeah, but it’s not a “gotcha” when someone suddenly changes the topic to the inverse of what was being said, and then acts like they’re arguing against you because the thing that you said about the original topic doesn’t add up with the new topic.
If you change the topic, you need to at least give the other person an opportunity to respond to your new topic, not just assume that their same argument applies.
Alright. I didn’t see any gotchas or argument, and didn’t make the comment.
That being said, reading the context I assume you’re referring to, it hardly reads like anything more than talking about the implication of the idea you shared.
Disagreeing because applying the argument consistently results in an undesirable outcome isn’t objectionable.
I’m not objecting to disagreement, I’m objecting to the attempt to apply my argument to a different situation that it wasn’t meant for, and then going on as if that’s even remotely what I was saying.
That’s not “applying the argument consistently”, it’s removing context, overgeneralizing the argument, and applying a strawman based on a twisted version of it.
Open-source developers using AI trained on closed-source code and closed-source developers using AI trained on open-source code are two different issues. My point was only intended to apply to the former, because that’s what we were talking about. Trying to apply what I said to the former is a distortion of my argument, and not the argument I was making.
And to try to conflate the two is to be allergic to nuance, which is honestly just typical and unsurprising, but if that’s the case then I’m done wasting my time on this conversation.
I’m really not interested in the topic. I’m talking because I explained what someone else meant and you started responding as though that was an opinion or argument I was making.
It’s really not.
It’s not unreasonable for someone to think “developers who use copy written code from AI aren’t liable for infringement” applies to closed source devs as well as open, and to disagree because they don’t like one of those.
It’s perfectly valid for you to also disagree and say the statement shouldn’t apply both ways, but that doesn’t make the other statement somehow a non-sequitor.
If you’re not interested, then why are you still here saying the same thing over and over again?
It’s perfectly fine if someone wants to make a claim that “we should apply the same argument across both situations,” and then I would give my reasoning as to why different arguments apply. But that’s not what happened.
What happened was, I gave an argument applied to the situation being discussed. Someone else tried to apply my argument to a different situation, in order to argue against a point that I didn’t make. And ever since that point, this whole conversation has been going in circles in which you and that other commenter keep arguing as if I’m saying something that I never said, and I keep stating repeatedly that it’s not what I said.
And if you read back through this chain, I never said it. I even said I can understand the other point of view, and would probably even agree with it, if that’s the conversation we were having, and I said we could even have that conversation, but that the sudden change of topic as an attempt to “score points” against me is not a good faith argumentation style.
Is it a problem if commercial LLMs are trained on GPL code, and then used by closed-source developers to generate proprietary code which potentially contains open-source snippets? Yes, I’ve never denied that. But that’s not what this conversation has been about.
From the start, it’s been about open-source developers using LLMs to write open-source code, when those LLMs are potentially trained on closed-source code and may generate snippets closely resembling closed-source code.
Those are fundamentally different situations, and if you can’t see that then I can break it down for you in minute detail. But the point I made about the one thing was never meant to apply to the other; and arguing against the point I made as if it was meant to apply to a different situation is a bad faith argument.