[slim]

It is knowledge, it can't be stolen. It is stolen only in the sense of someone gatekeeping knowledge. Which is as a practice, the least we can say, dubious. because is math stolen ? if you stole math to build your knowledge on top of it, you own nothing and can claim to have been stolen yourself

[wernsey]

I disagree.

Code is the expression of knowledge and can be protected by copyright.

A lot of the popular licenses on GitHub (like MIT) permits you to use a piece of code on the condition that you credit the original author. If an LLM outputs code from such a project (or remixes code from several such projects) then it needs to credit the original authors or be in violation.

If Disney's intellectual property can be stolen and needs to be protected for 95+ years by copyright then surely the bedroom programmers' labor deserves the same protections.

[slim]

We're not talking about the expression of knowledge. What is used in AI models is the knowledge from that expression. That code is not copied as is, instead knowledge is extracted from it and used to produce similar code. Copyright does not apply, IMHO

[jakkos]

Are you against copyright, patents, and IP in all forms then?

[catdog]

Independent of ones philosophical stance on the broader topic: I find it highly concerning that AI companies, at least right now, seem to be largely exempt from all those rules which apply to everyone else, often enforced rigorously.

[logicprog]

I am.

[thedevilslawyer]

Absolutely. As any logical person should be.

[lou1306]

If you are so adamant about this, why don't you release all your own code in the public domain? Aren't you gatekeeping knowledge too?

[logicprog]

I agree with GP, and so, yes, I release everything I do — code and the hundreds of thousands of painstakingly researched, drafted, deeply thought through words of writing that I do — using a public domain equivalent license (to ensure it's as free as possible), the zero clause BSD.