While I agree with you regarding shady business practices, you're very conveniently skipping over the fact that open source licenses _REQUIRE_ attribution.

▲

andsoitis 18 hours ago | parent [-]

> While I agree with you regarding shady business practices, you're very conveniently skipping over the fact that open source licenses _REQUIRE_ attribution.

When you use the code as is or create a derivative work. The knowledge embodied by the code and encapsulated in an LLM doesn't strike me as needing to give attribution because the code the LLM would product doesn't match any particular open source code base.

At least that's my thinking. I'd be curious to see an example where you think attribution is necessary and how you would actually do it given an output from an LLM.

▲

za_creature 17 hours ago | parent [-]

I answered here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49775387

I will continue to hold that position until such a time that we get a better answer than:

> we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models

▲

andsoitis 17 hours ago | parent [-]

I hear you, but I think you might miss my point, which is while LLMs are clearly trained on copyrighted material, what they produce (their output) is NOT a copy of a specific code snippet they were trained on in a way that you would say "that's a copy from this code base".

▲

za_creature 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Open source also requires attribution for derivative works [1], not just verbatim copies.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Derivative_work&o...

	▲	andsoitis 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Thanks for that link to the definition and requirements for something to be considered a derivative work. I think my interpretation, based on your link, holds: unless the LLM output (transformation) substantially bears the original source code author's creation and personality, there is nothing to give attribution to.