7 ms·

Yes, AI should be trained on every piece of information possible. Am I allowed to become a better programmer by looking at private, (illegally leaked) closed-so

Yes, AI should be trained on every piece of information possible. Am I allowed to become a better programmer by looking at private, (illegally leaked) closed-source, proprietary code?

ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> Am I allowed to become a better programmer by looking at private code? Your argument is based on the idea that you and AI should have the same rights? I do not see how this works unless AI going to be entitled to minimum wage and paid leave? Otherwise it is just a money grab
- sebzim4500 3y ago
  He's not saying that he and the AI have the same rights, rather that he and the person running the AI have the same rights.
mrelectric 3y ago
You're obviously not
- grondo4 3y ago
  Is that a joke? Yes you are allowed to read closed-source, proprietary code and become a better programmer for it. I've decompiled games to learn how they structure their code to improve the structure of games that I program. I had no right to that code and I used it to become a better programmer just like AI do. That's not copyright infringement. You have a right to stop me from using your code, not learning from it.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    Now granted most EULAs and Terms of Service documents aren't legally enforced, most software licenses explicitly prohibit decompiling or otherwise disassembling binaries. So, yes: They have a right to stop you from "learning" from their code. If you want that right, see if they're willing to sell that right to you.
    - grondo4 3y ago
      > They have a right to stop you from "learning" from their code. They absolutely do not, and as pedantic as it may be I think it's very important that you and everyone else in this thread know what their rights are. If you sign a contract / EULA that says you cannot decompile someone's code than yes you are liable for any damages promised in that contract for violating it. But who says that I ever signed a EULA for the games I decompiled? Who says I didn't find a copy on a hard drive I bought at a yard sale or someone sent me the decompiled binary themselves? Those people may have violated the contract but I did not. There is no law preventing you from learning from code, art, film or any other copyrighted media. Nor is there any law (or should there be any law IMO) that stops an AI from learning from copyrighted media. Learning from each other regardless of intellectual property law is how the human race advances itself. The fact that we've managed to that automate human progress is incredible, and it's very good that our laws are the way they are that we can allow that to happen.
  - Alchemista 3y ago
    This is a pretty extreme stance. There is a fine line between "learning from" proprietary code and outright stealing some of the key insights and IP. Sometimes it takes a very difficult conceptual leap to solve some of the more difficult computer science and math problems. "Learning" (aka stealing) someone's solution is very problematic and will get you sued if you are not careful.
    - skeaker 3y ago
      If you think that's extreme, wait until you hear my stance that code shouldn't be something that you can own (and can therefore "steal") to begin with.
madeofpalk 3y ago
No https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
- grondo4 3y ago
  I didn't ask if can I use other people's proprietary closed source code, obviously they have the right to that code and how it's used. I asked if I can learn from that code, which obviously I can. There is no license that says "You cannot learn from this code and take the things you learn to become a better programmer". That's exactly what I do and it's exactly what AI do.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    If you study a closed source compiler (or whatever) in order to write a competitive product, and the company who wrote the original product sues you for copying it, as the parent suggests, you're on shaky legal ground. Which is why clean room design is a thing.
    - nickelpro 3y ago
      A clean room design ensures the new code is 100% original, and not a copy of the base code. That is why it is legally preferable, because it is easy to prove certain facts in court. But fundamentally the problem is copyright, the copying of existing IP, not knowledge. grondo4 is completely correct that there is no legal framework that prevents learning from closed-source IP. If such a framework existed, clean room design would not work. The initial spec-writers in a clean room design are reading the protected work.
      - ghaff 3y ago
        >The initial spec-writers in a clean room design are reading the closed-source work. Right. And they're only exposing elements presumably not covered by copyright to the developers writing the code. (Of course, this assumes they had legitimate access to the code in the first place.) Clean room design isn't a requirement in the case of, say, writing a BIOS which may have been when this first came up. But it's a lot easier to defend against a copyright claim when it's documented that the people who wrote the code never saw the original. Unlike with patents, independent creation isn't a copyright violation.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
omoikane 3y ago
One motivation for artists to create and share new work is the expectation that most people won't just outright copy their work, based on the social norm that stealing is dishonorable. This social norm comes with some level of legal protection, but it largely depends on a common expectation of what is considered stealing or not. Once we have adopted the attitude that we can just copy as we please without attribution, it would be much more difficult to find motivated artists, and we would have failed as a society.

Yes, AI should be trained on every piece of information possible. Am I allowed to become a better programmer by looking at private, (illegally leaked) closed-source, proprietary code?

ClumsyPilot 3y ago

> Am I allowed to become a better programmer by looking at private code? Your argument is based on the idea that you and AI should have the same rights? I do not see how this works unless AI going to be entitled to minimum wage and paid leave? Otherwise it is just a money grab

sebzim4500 3y ago
He's not saying that he and the AI have the same rights, rather that he and the person running the AI have the same rights.

mrelectric 3y ago

You're obviously not

grondo4 3y ago
Is that a joke? Yes you are allowed to read closed-source, proprietary code and become a better programmer for it. I've decompiled games to learn how they structure their code to improve the structure of games that I program. I had no right to that code and I used it to become a better programmer just like AI do. That's not copyright infringement. You have a right to stop me from using your code, not learning from it.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  Now granted most EULAs and Terms of Service documents aren't legally enforced, most software licenses explicitly prohibit decompiling or otherwise disassembling binaries. So, yes: They have a right to stop you from "learning" from their code. If you want that right, see if they're willing to sell that right to you.
  - grondo4 3y ago
    > They have a right to stop you from "learning" from their code. They absolutely do not, and as pedantic as it may be I think it's very important that you and everyone else in this thread know what their rights are. If you sign a contract / EULA that says you cannot decompile someone's code than yes you are liable for any damages promised in that contract for violating it. But who says that I ever signed a EULA for the games I decompiled? Who says I didn't find a copy on a hard drive I bought at a yard sale or someone sent me the decompiled binary themselves? Those people may have violated the contract but I did not. There is no law preventing you from learning from code, art, film or any other copyrighted media. Nor is there any law (or should there be any law IMO) that stops an AI from learning from copyrighted media. Learning from each other regardless of intellectual property law is how the human race advances itself. The fact that we've managed to that automate human progress is incredible, and it's very good that our laws are the way they are that we can allow that to happen.
- Alchemista 3y ago
  This is a pretty extreme stance. There is a fine line between "learning from" proprietary code and outright stealing some of the key insights and IP. Sometimes it takes a very difficult conceptual leap to solve some of the more difficult computer science and math problems. "Learning" (aka stealing) someone's solution is very problematic and will get you sued if you are not careful.
  - skeaker 3y ago
    If you think that's extreme, wait until you hear my stance that code shouldn't be something that you can own (and can therefore "steal") to begin with.

madeofpalk 3y ago

No https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design

grondo4 3y ago
I didn't ask if can I use other people's proprietary closed source code, obviously they have the right to that code and how it's used. I asked if I can learn from that code, which obviously I can. There is no license that says "You cannot learn from this code and take the things you learn to become a better programmer". That's exactly what I do and it's exactly what AI do.
- ghaff 3y ago
  If you study a closed source compiler (or whatever) in order to write a competitive product, and the company who wrote the original product sues you for copying it, as the parent suggests, you're on shaky legal ground. Which is why clean room design is a thing.
  - nickelpro 3y ago
    A clean room design ensures the new code is 100% original, and not a copy of the base code. That is why it is legally preferable, because it is easy to prove certain facts in court. But fundamentally the problem is copyright, the copying of existing IP, not knowledge. grondo4 is completely correct that there is no legal framework that prevents learning from closed-source IP. If such a framework existed, clean room design would not work. The initial spec-writers in a clean room design are reading the protected work.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      >The initial spec-writers in a clean room design are reading the closed-source work. Right. And they're only exposing elements presumably not covered by copyright to the developers writing the code. (Of course, this assumes they had legitimate access to the code in the first place.) Clean room design isn't a requirement in the case of, say, writing a BIOS which may have been when this first came up. But it's a lot easier to defend against a copyright claim when it's documented that the people who wrote the code never saw the original. Unlike with patents, independent creation isn't a copyright violation.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

omoikane 3y ago

One motivation for artists to create and share new work is the expectation that most people won't just outright copy their work, based on the social norm that stealing is dishonorable. This social norm comes with some level of legal protection, but it largely depends on a common expectation of what is considered stealing or not. Once we have adopted the attitude that we can just copy as we please without attribution, it would be much more difficult to find motivated artists, and we would have failed as a society.