• 0 Posts
  • 124 Comments
Joined 10 months ago
cake
Cake day: December 16th, 2023

help-circle


  • Depends on the training and the output.

    Just like if you photographed the Mona Lisa in such a way as it recreated the piece as if it wasn’t a photograph, a model sufficiently trained that can reproduce the original training data, you have copyright issues.

    Problem is that many models can do this, but it’s a mathematically improbable occurrence.

    If I make a stamp that’s made of 1 billion exact copies of different copyrighted photos and cut it infinitesimally small, and mixed it up, the problem that it can produce the original work that it was made from still becomes a copyright issue.

    You’d have to prove the opposite, in fact. That it’s mathematically impossible for your model to reproduce the copyrighted content for it not to be an issue







  • Biggest issue I see is that these LLMs tend to repeat themselves after a surprisingly short number of times (unless they’re sufficiently bloated like ChatGPT).

    If you ask any of the users of Sillytavern or RisuAI they’ll tell you that these things have a long tail of not being very creative.




  • “releasing the modified version to the public” would cover them re-closing the source and then subsequently releasing that newly closed source, so they can’t relicense it and then release the built version of the code.

    At least not easily, this is where court history would likely need to be visited because the way it’s worded the interpretability of “modified” in this context would need to be examined.









  • The problem is that the Linux kernel is monolithic so introducing rust into it does have certain repercussions about downstream compatibility between modules.

    Right now the rust code in the kernel uses c bindings for some things and there’s a not-insignificant portion of C developers who both refuse to use rust and refuse to take responsibility if the code they write breaks something in the rust bindings.

    If it was pure C there would be no excuse as the standard for Linux development is that you don’t break downstream, but the current zeitgeist is that Rust being a different language means that the current C developers have no responsibility if their code refactoring now breaks the rust code.

    It’s a frankly ridiculous stance to take, considering the long history of Linux being very strict on not breaking downstream code.