• sem@piefed.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    22 hours ago

    First of all, who is going to discover the closed source use of gpl code and create a lawsuit anyway?

    Second, the llm ingests the code, and then spits it back out, with maybe a few changes. That is how it benefits from copyleft code while stripping the license.

    Maybe a human could do the same thing, but it would take much longer.

    • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Wait, did you just move the goalposts? I thought the issue we were talking about was open-source developers who use LLM-generated code and unwittingly commit changes that contain allegedly closed-source snippets from the LLM’s training data.

      Now you want to talk about LLM training data that uses open-source code, and then closed-source developers commit changes that contain snippets of GPL code? That’s fine. It’s a change of topic, but we can talk about that too.

      Just don’t expect what I said before about the previous topic of discussion to apply to the new topic. If we’re talking about something different now, I get to say different things. That’s how it works.

      • sem@piefed.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        I was responding specifically to this part

        But if an LLM regurgitates closed-source code from its training data, I just can’t see any way how that would be the developer’s fault…

        showing what would happen when the llm regurgitates open source code into close source projects.

        Sorry if you didn’t like that.