(ℹ) Join us now at the IRC channel | ䷉ Find the plain text version at this address (HTTP) or in Gemini (how to use Gemini) with a full GemText version.
| *psydroid2 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 5.2.10 Quasar http://www.kvirc.net/) | Jun 01 00:30 | |
| *amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Jun 01 00:54 | |
| *x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Jun 01 00:54 | |
| *amarsh04 (~amarsh04@freenode-ui3f8c.u06p.1s3m.moll9o.IP) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 01 00:58 | |
| *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@atu2uhbvxaeyw.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 01 00:59 | |
| *x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Jun 01 01:04 | |
| *amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Jun 01 01:04 | |
| *amarsh04 (~amarsh04@freenode-ui3f8c.u06p.1s3m.moll9o.IP) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 01 01:07 | |
| *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@atu2uhbvxaeyw.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 01 01:07 | |
| *x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Jun 01 01:10 | |
| *amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) | Jun 01 01:10 | |
| *amarsh04 (~amarsh04@freenode-ui3f8c.u06p.1s3m.moll9o.IP) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 01 01:11 | |
| *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@atu2uhbvxaeyw.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 01 01:11 | |
| *FANTOM has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) | Jun 01 09:07 | |
| *FANTOM (~fantom@freenode-asa.ci7.v1ickb.IP) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 01 09:14 | |
| *psydroid2 (~psydroid@36imbvshpgubk.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 01 10:30 | |
| *psydroid2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Jun 01 14:53 | |
| *psydroid2 (~psydroid@36imbvshpgubk.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 01 15:05 | |
| *psydroid2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Jun 01 16:24 | |
| *psydroid2 (~psydroid@36imbvshpgubk.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 01 16:36 | |
| *psydroid2 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 5.2.10 Quasar http://www.kvirc.net/) | Jun 01 16:57 | |
| *psydroid2 (~psydroid@36imbvshpgubk.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 01 17:25 | |
| *psydroid2 has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) | Jun 01 17:50 | |
| *enyc has quit (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) | Jun 01 17:52 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #boycottnovell | Jun 01 19:46 | |
| *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #boycottnovell | Jun 01 20:05 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2026-06/msg00007.html | Jun 01 20:46 |
|---|---|---|
| schestowitz[TR2] | " | Jun 01 20:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Yes, I agree, it says same what I said and meant. But you quote me and follow with citation, is it to support my argument or to counter against it? | Jun 01 20:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | I think same as copyright office, as it is common sense. If human has created anything, no matter the tool, it is copyrighted. | Jun 01 20:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | But if you ask computer to display the picture of popular painter, and then you blur the picture, or distort it a bit, how can that be copyrightable? That is same analogy to LLM creation of works without substantial human input. | Jun 01 20:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Thus the problem raised in Andy's original message, that LLMs can be and are being misused to strip licensing (and attribution) from projects' code bases. | Jun 01 20:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | "can be" I agree, but not mainly. If I am mistaken, okay, just sensitive on generalization and blatant statements which are not helpful to public. | Jun 01 20:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | And you do not need LLM to strip licensing and attribution. So why blame the tool for human actions? | Jun 01 20:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | The code goes into the large language model with a license and a copyright holder. | Jun 01 20:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Not generally. | Jun 01 20:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | There are millions of LLMs out there, so can you be specific and say which large language model you specifically talk about? I am sure you do not talk about OLMO models (just as example)? So do you? | Jun 01 20:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Calling that infringement a training set doesn't change its nature. Then the code comes back out of the model as slop, and while slop in general is ineligible for copyright status the original code remains strongly protected by copyright, whether plagiarized by an LLM or not. | Jun 01 20:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | I agree on that statement, but please, many people run locally LLMs, so please not assume we do that. LLMs do not do that. It is human doing. Do not anthropomorhize LLMs like having some intention to do that. | Jun 01 20:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | And, again, as mentioned in an earlier reply, there is the further problem of the LLMs separating users from projects and vice versa. | Jun 01 20:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Wow, you are talking like we are already in Odysee 2001... Hal... separate user from the project. | Jun 01 20:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | It is not LLM separating any user from project! | Jun 01 20:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | "COPE joins organisations, such as WAME and the JAMA | Jun 01 20:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Network among others, to state that AI tools cannot | Jun 01 20:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | be listed as an author of a paper." | Jun 01 20:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Exactly. So your statements are contradictory. First you speak of LLM like human living being, then you say it cannot be designated as author... | Jun 01 20:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | It would not be a stretch to apply a similar conclusion to code which has been mangled by an LLM. | Jun 01 20:46 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | It was not LLM. It was human." | Jun 01 20:46 |
| -TechBN/#boycottnovell-Connection timed out after 10002 milliseconds ( status 0 @ https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2026-06/msg00007.html ) | Jun 01 20:46 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2026-06/msg00004.html | Jun 01 20:47 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | " | Jun 01 20:47 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | LLMs are generative synthesis engines that operate on probabilistic reasoning, contextual understanding, and semantic compression. | Jun 01 20:47 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | No, LLMs have nothing to do with generation. They merely ingest 'tokens' and recombine sets of them into statistically plausible combinations. Lots of people get confused about that, perhaps (to be generous) because of wishful thinking on their part. | Jun 01 20:47 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | That is not literally correct. Maybe you mean "creation" like something new, I agree on that, LLMs do not create, but they do generate. The "G" in GPT stands for "generative". So yes, LLMs are generative in the technical sense: they produce new sequences of tokens that didn’t exist verbatim in training, by sampling from a learned probability distribution. | Jun 01 20:47 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Your underlying point is important, you probably mean "no creation" there. I just think you are denying that they are generating in the sense of creating meaning or having intent. | Jun 01 20:47 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Plagiarism requires intent. | Jun 01 20:47 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Intent is not a prerequisite for plagiarism as defined in academia over the ages. | Jun 01 20:47 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | LLMs do not have any intent. | Jun 01 20:47 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | The definition you are referring to, refers to human, as only human can have intent. Not the computer alone without human. | Jun 01 20:47 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Let us not conflate the definition where using someone's work without attribution is considered plagiarism with or without intention. That refers to human. Not to machine. | Jun 01 20:47 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Agreed, LLMs have no intent. Thus LLMs just plagiarize despite being automatons. But those who interface with LLMs can have intent. One can question the intent of those interfacing with LLMs because most people know, at least on some level, that the 'tokens' are slurped up verbatim from the WWW at large without attribution. | Jun 01 20:47 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | So let us say, you ask the LLM to give some full work at once, like doctorate, and then you could maybe get plagiarism verbatim. | Jun 01 20:47 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | But if you ask LLM to construct your sentences, paragraphs, by using your own thoughts, that isn't plagiarism. You create by using your mind, the LLM is just a tool. | Jun 01 20:47 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | But, yeah, using LLMs to strip the GPL and other software licenses | Jun 01 20:47 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | from code, as well as stripping copyright attribution, is a real | Jun 01 20:47 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | problem now. | Jun 01 20:47 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | For who? Do you have specific case? You can complain. But let us not | Jun 01 20:47 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | generalize. | Jun 01 20:47 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | In the context of code, one recent example is the use of LLMs to try to strip the Chardet project of its license, among quite a few other similar attacks some more public some less public. Noticeably, the original code is in the training set so the stripped version can hardly be described as a cleanroom implementation. | Jun 01 20:47 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | People can do that, but that deviates from the original statement how LLMs "main" use is something like that. Obviously it was human, not the LLM, human who used LLM to generate slightly different copyrighted code. So don't blame the tool. Same tools could be made with software that is not LLM. Should we then generalize and call all software as copyright infringing because someone used software to generate copyrighted code?! Th | Jun 01 20:47 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | at makes no sense. | Jun 01 20:47 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | It is also insulting to people who run local large language models, someone comes out of the blue and generalizes, it feels like all of my friends are plagiarist or something, while reality is totally different, and such statements come from people who don't even run any local LLM or are they say they are not experts anyway. " | Jun 01 20:47 |
| -TechBN/#boycottnovell-Connection timed out after 10002 milliseconds ( status 0 @ https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2026-06/msg00004.html ) | Jun 01 20:47 | |
| schestowitz[TR2] | "It's too simple to say "AI has no intent" just because it has no *feelings*. | Jun 01 20:48 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | Humans are motivated by feelings to do anything. There's no evidence that LLMs have | Jun 01 20:48 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | feelings. But in every other respect they are motivated, as in they do have goals | Jun 01 20:48 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | (programmed to get points measured in some way) *and* take actions to achieve those | Jun 01 20:48 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | goals. We can see that as intention without imagining that they have any internal | Jun 01 20:48 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | conscious experience or feelings. To the extent that it's merely extremely complicated | Jun 01 20:48 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | bunch of process applied to inputs, that much is true about humans as well, so that isn't | Jun 01 20:48 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | a distinction worth emphasizing. | Jun 01 20:48 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | The real question here is whether we grant LLMs some sort of legal status as | Jun 01 20:48 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | entities, and that's an extemely dangerous direction which we should resist. | Jun 01 20:48 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | It's already been a horrific, destabilizing, life-threatening catastrophe to | Jun 01 20:48 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | grant special legal status to corporations! We need to return to having legal | Jun 01 20:48 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | status only for living things (indeed extending to many more species than | Jun 01 20:48 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | humans though)." | Jun 01 20:48 |
| schestowitz[TR2] | https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2026-06/msg00001.html | Jun 01 20:48 |
| -TechBN/#boycottnovell-Connection timed out after 10002 milliseconds ( status 0 @ https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2026-06/msg00001.html ) | Jun 01 20:49 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 | ䷉ find the plain text version at this address (HTTP) or in Gemini (how to use Gemini) with a full GemText version.