You must log in or # to comment.
Genuinely surprised it’s even opt-out.
These companies train on Disney DVDs. Permission is not a factor. Training is transformative use, as much for counting letter frequency as for building a chatbot that can sort of code.
no, officer, you misunderstand! I’m not pirating this movie, I’m just training my intelligence on it! it is transformative use, see, I can now write you this summary!
A number of my repos are listed.
But the weird part is that it also lists a repo I don’t recognize. The repo does actually exist on my github account, but it’s marked as “ignored”, and the description says it was automatically exported from Google Code. The code seems to be a MacOS shareware file encryption tool called “BitClamp”, published circa 2008.
No idea how it got on my account.
I’m just realizing that I’ve had my college transcripts on GitHub since I graduated years ago.
They got some broken Linux configuration from me, some project with many securities fails in it and a big amount of virus codes I got from the time I was hypefocusing on worms…
In theory, it’s all supposed to be permissively licenced code and the opt out is more than other models give. I saw Starcoder as one of the more ethical models. I thought the underlying principals to be fair at least.
I’m interested in this gut hostility to it regardless. Kind of shows how you can’t present LLMs in a positive angle no matter what. They shouldn’t be using anything GPL or similar.
Kind of shows how you can’t present
LLMsharvesting peoples data without consent or even warning and making it difficult to impossible for people to avoid it in a positive angle no matter what.Fixed it for you.
An LLM built from only consensually provided data would be perfectly fine, as long as it works without environmentally ruinous data centers.
In fact, that was how EVERY LLM was to begin with, until regulatory capture and corporate impunity reached the current crescendo.
But if it’s permissively licenced, couldn’t I just copy bits and pieces for my own project without asking?
Like I understand asking is always better and an opt in process for “the stack” or wtv would have been better received. Nevertheless, did they really have a legal obligation, rather than moral obligation, to ask given how this is licensed?
Taking GPL code would be a different situation right? They would have to also include it in their model creation… which theoretically they just could.
…do you know what the word “consensually” means? 🤦🏻
I do not believe a permissive license has any notion of consent. You can’t stop someone from forking your code as long as they follow the rules of the license, like crediting you.
Even in GPL, you can’t stop someone from using your code, see Gnome’s recent arguements with Mint over their usage of an old version of their Calender app.
Others in the thread have mentioned we’ll see permissive licenses with exceptions for Ai in the near future. It’s a solution because that door is currently open.
You can’t stop someone from forking your code as long as they follow the rules of the license, like crediting you
In that case,though, you’re still respecting the wishes of the person applying that permissive license consensually, though.
That’s VERY different from mass harvesting all data without permission (or credit) for profit, which would probably be against the terms of even the most permissive licenses.
Their claim was they followed the licenses and only used code they were implicitly allowed to use. I’d like to see if that was just astroturf and bullshit.
Honestly, though this is one of the reasons why people prefer copyleft and avoid permissive licenses, because yeah anyone can profit monetarily off your work otherwise.
Their claim was they followed the licenses and only used code they were implicitly allowed to use
Was likely bullshit. Just like just about everything else people behind for profit LLMs say about their business practices.
I’d like to see if that was just astroturf and bullshit.
Almost certainly
You can host copyleft as well as all rights reserved code on GitHub. It’s not like Codeberg.
Yeah, they aren’t supposed to scrape that stuff. That’s kind of where I’m wondering if they limited their collections.
Okay, I see you, I think I may have misunderstood how you were phrasing it. Thinking you were saying they were scanning all of GitHub because it’s all permissive.
We’ll they said they only scanned stuff that would have allowed them implicitly, now did they really respect that? Their ‘‘stack’’ is public, so people can review it. It’s opensource, people can audit it at least.
The big giants can lift whatever they want from Github and we wouldn’t have the means to prove it. I’m sure Microsoft is using private repos as they like. It’s not a coincidence that Copilot was one of the earlier coding LLMs.
Machine learning is more than just “transformative use” and is not copying. Currently that is only like 98% true, because memorization does occur in a few cases. Like 0.8-2% and that number is probably less now 2 years later than that study. Ultimately once they fix the memorization issue and “purge” these memories and can no longer reproduce licensed code (which is mostly textbook examples and boilerplate code or very popular code) this will be true transformative learning.
Then they do not require any more permission to read and learn from a book or from code than a human would. As long as you own a book or have the right to read something, you’re allowed to do whatever you want with the knowledge you gained.
meanwhile I’m just here scraping GitHub repos for API keys and credentials 🤷♂️
for legal reasons I must insist this is a joke, and in Minecraft.
I don’t see a problem as long as they stick to AGPL when building a product out of it
Edit: Oh they also scraped my proprietary code 🧐
So they scrapped stuff that wasn’t permissive? Interesting… though not really surprising.
Looks for my username. Sees my 8 open repositories in there. Sees my poorly coded Uni projects are also in there.
Oh lord my code is actively helping making AI worse.
Hope some group makes it their mission to start flooding github with garbage code.
Microsoft is already working hard on this by shoving AI in everyone’s faces
Mission failed successfully!
Glad to be part of the crew with shitty code in Github to taint them plagiarism machines!
90% of the code in my GitHub was written while I was stoned out of my mind, so I’m probably helping, too.
I’m doing my part!
Literally all LLMs are affected by GIGO. This is why everything it outputs sounds like a redditor.
you joke but someone has actually traced to one of my commits a specific behavior that people on the internet have been complaining from LLMs recently.
Woo! My crappy code and group projects are in there too!
May all AI generated code be in one giant main loop thanks to my influence 😈
Thinking back to the sins I’ve committed in C# as a high schooler… maybe I should start publishing my works. Put some poison in the soup.
For some reason the included only the repo for my github profile that has no code in it and not the other ones, my guess is that they avoided me because of the GPL license on all my code
Spoiler
also, some repositories were my first projects so they are way more shit than the avarage AI code and it would be funny if they poisoned themselves and i have some archived project that also have shit code but only on github because i switched to codeberg and rewrote them
Time to leave malicious code for Claud in git hub projects.
I’m doing my part by already writing shitty code.
…and now, suddenly, github being overrun by vibecoded garbage isn’t so bad
AI will poison itself trust, like when it links AI made articles.
Also, all this reminds me of drama in the Skyrim and Minecraft modding scenes, when devs publish stuff under Apache or MIT or whatever.
Then the devs find out they don’t like what others are doing with their code. Drama ensues.
…That’s kinda the deal with permissive licenses. Or posting publicly, like here on Lemmy. People will do things you don’t like with your code or content.
Eh, I don’t think it’s hypocritical to contribute to a commons and then get mad when someone comes along and tries to use the commons to undermine the commons.
Like yes, the commons is there to be used… but not to kill the commons.
https://www.citationneeded.news/free-and-open-access-in-the-age-of-generative-ai/
The most important thing is to protect the people’s right to use open source / weight AI models without licensing. Because the AI companies permanently monopolizing AI models and collecting rent forever on the commons, that would be a tragedy. It would forever shift the balance of power to use advanced technology.
It’s kind of a tragedy if you think about it
Really? In front of my Elinor Ostrom poster?
LLMs training on data don’t prevent anyone from themselves learning on that data, so I don’t see how the commons is going to be killed here.
Nah if you’re a massive AI company and you scrape without contribution, you’re a huge piece of shit.
It’s just stealing plain and simple like anything else.
They’re not a small user getting open source software, they’re scraping what is already done to try and make you obsolete.
There are permissive licenses, and then there are copyleft licenses. Permissive licenses go in the direction of “do whatever the fuck you want”. Copyleft licenses are more like “use it for whatever the fuck you want but if you change it give it back to everyone else with the same conditions”. The people who have projects with copyleft licenses are the ones who are (rightfully) pissed about their projects being used to train AI.
Huggingface isn’t violating copyleft licenses here, I don’t think. And research projects that use it, with citations and documentation, wouldn’t either.
Now, if some business comes along and tries to make proprietary code derived from the dataset, that’s where things get hairy. But the people doing that are responsible for the potential violation, not Huggingface.
They’re violating proprietary licenses at the very least
On the other hand, totally did not see this particular shit coming. I wonder if we’ll see a rash of “permissive, except LLMs can fuck right off” licenses.
Permissive licences should be the ones to fuck off entirely. GPL or death
No, libraries should remain permissive IMO. Applications can be restrictive if they want to. I just don’t see any point in a copyleft library or framework.
No unfree application should ideally be allowed ever again
World runs on them though. I don’t mean business to consumer shit, all that can rot in hell. I mean business to business. There’s shit out there that’s incredibly niche, takes a ton of effort to develop, and there’s no way it would ever be achieved without a huge financial incentive (because it’s just so niche and it turns out paying tens or hundreds of people takes money). And someone’s gotta pay the people writing all your open source code so most of them need day jobs anyway, which will be difficult to have without any commercial software existing. Sometimes the “all our code is GPL, but you can pay us to host it for you” model works, but a lot of the time it doesn’t.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: there is a place for permissive licenses. A great example is reference code for open standards, eg. TCP/IP.
Permissive licences are useful compared to copyleft ones only for unfree actors, which we should fight integrally at every step of the way
You’ll take my code and have a nice life or so help me!
“Look, I wrote this neat highly advanced machine vision thing to help people with accessibility needs communicate with loved ones! ❤️. MIT licensed I guess! Let’s make the world better!”
Raytheon, Northropp, Boeing, Microsoft, three-letter-agencies suddenly fork it as a base for their own “projects.”
😐
Institutions with monopoly on violence or companies that they deal with don’t care whether software is released as MIT or AGPL, they just take it and build on it. (Maybe that’s exactly what you mean though, I’m not sure.)
Hehe yeah I guess that’s what I meant. Just making a statement on how software has become I guess, and maybe a bit about how highly permissive licenses might have unintended consequences.
The open source spirit is one of the shining jewels of the human race, but it really sucks that I don’t think any of those “You aren’t allowed to use my code to make the world a worse place” clauses would actually hold up. =\
Right, I mean I literally published my code openly, so idc lol
I’m not much of a programmer, but why arern’t more people just using GitLab instead of GitHub?
Network effect / discoverability and free CI time
Job recruiters get scared.
We’d have an even bigger RAM shortage if so.
Why go from corporate to corporate platform? Codeberg exists.
Self hosted gitlab is pretty nice, sucks that some features are still paywalled and it’s been getting somewhat bloated after 18.x tho
You can look into selfhosting Forgejo! No paywalls, and super fast, especially compared to Gitlab
Still learning git but apparently there’s some “power features”, and, aside from that, it’s the same BS network effect that keeps everyone on all the abusive platforms.
Discoverability, it’s where all the other people already stashed their code, sunk cost, etc…
Siiiigh…
Afaik on github you get quite powerful runners for free
I am a feudal peasant who just jumped through time with a strange man in a blue box and I don’t know what any of these terms mean. Please explain them to me as if I were an imbecile, please and thank you. No, I am not an LLM training to teach people we reconstitute in the future about the world today. I am just an ordinary shit farmer like the rest of the good people of my village.
Bad News: My old GitHub repos are there.
Good News: I wrote that shit when I was 12. The code runs, but it’s not good and not inventive.
For me, they only have one of my repos, and I deleted all my repos months ago, so whether they actually have the code or just the title idk
Good news: If anyone wants the one they got, I host it myself here instead. Fuck M$, AI thieves etc.
I mean they can probably steal it from my site too but I’ve taken precautions, and the second biggest reason to migrate off corpo accounts entirely – my site is a much smaller hacker target than Github.
Reposted on instance with likely more reach
Uhhh...
Go off, I guess?
Woof. They really went for it on my GitHub
Yes, there is code from 79 repositories in The Stack v3
Well… I’d rather the dataset be public and there, with an ostensible centralized opt-out, instead of every AI startup frantically rescraping the same things their predecessors did.
True, I understand why this is better than all those companies scraping it individually (for both ability to opt out and site load), but the way they handled opt out is still quite silly.
If they only include repositories that come with a proper open source license technically they don’t even need to provide an opt-out option. So, good thing that at least it exists.
EDIT: oops replied to wrong comment
Second that. After all all my open repositories are all either licenced under GPL or MIT, so complaining would be a kind of hypocritical.
GPL is dodgy to be included in training data for AIs that are then used to generate non-openaource code tbh. Even MIT loses the attribution it’s supposed to have once laundered through AI…
Speaking as someone that’s been into FOSS for a long time, it does piss me off how quickly copyright got thrown under the bus the moment it became inconvenient for people with money.
Yes, but what HuggingFace is doing here is the distribution of a data set. And so long the data set itself is open that doesn’t conflict with GPL. HuggingFace is not responsible about how others use that data set.
Whether LLMs themselves violate copyright for being trained on MIT or GPL code is an entirely different discussion.
