On 3/18/24 11:28, Simon Tournier wrote:
Hi,
On sam., 16 mars 2024 at 08:52, Ian Eure <i...@retrospec.tv> wrote:
They appear to be using the archive to build LLMs:
https://www.softwareheritage.org/2024/02/28/responsible-ai-with-starcoder2/
About LLM, Software Heritage made a clear statement:
https://www.softwareheritage.org/2023/10/19/swh-statement-on-llm-for-code
Quoting:
We feel that the question is no longer whether LLMs for code
should be built. They are already being built, independently of
what we do, and there is no turning back. The real question is
how they should be built and whom they should benefit.
Principles:
1. Knowledge derived from the Software Heritage archive must be
given back to humanity, rather than monopolized for private
gain. The resulting machine learning models must be made available
under a suitable open license, together with the documentation and
toolings needed to use them.
2. The initial training data extracted from the Software Heritage
archive must be fully and precisely identified by, for example,
publishing the corresponding SWHID identifiers (note that, in the
context of Software Heritage, public availability of the initial
training data is a given: anyone can obtain it from the
archive). This will enable use cases such as: studying biases
(fairness), verifying if a code of interest was present in the
training data (transparency), and providing appropriate attribution
when generated code bears resemblance to training data (credit),
among others.
3. Mechanisms should be established, where possible, for authors to
exclude their archived code from the training inputs before model
training begins.
I hope it clarifies your concerns to some extent.
Moreover, you wrote: « I want absolutely nothing to do with them. »
Maybe there is a misunderstanding on your side about what “free
software” and GPL means because once “free software”, you cannot prevent
people to use “your” free software for any purposes you dislike.
If you want to bound the use cases of the software you create, you need
to explicitly specify that in the license. And if you do, your software
will not be considered as “free software”.
That’s the double sword of “free software”. :-)
Simon,
1.
You seem to be misunderstanding the statement here that was said.
What you can do legally and what you can do socially are not always the
same thing.
As advice for the future when somebody says a concern or wish they have,
your first statement shouldn't be "but its legal" because that
completely dismisses any constructive discussion that could be done.
And you seem to be talking about legal a lot here so thats not a good look.
Yes, legally Ian probably can't get lawyers on you. But nobody is
talking about legally here.
What is in question here is whether Software Heritage respects people
enough to do the right thing and respect their wishes without getting
lawyers/legal involved.
Besides with the way you are framing Free Software as not respecting any
social rules then that makes Free Software not attractive which is the
opposite of what we are trying to do here :)
2.
> Somehow, a Content-Addressed system is designed around immutable
content. And if one know how to implement a Content-Addressed system
relying on mutable content, I would be very interested to know more
about it.
Please refrain from doing such remarks. Nobody here suggested anything
that you mention here and you effectively devalue the discussion by
arguing like this and frame other people as stupid.
3.
Its not on people that are not included to write the code. If Guix is to
be an inclusive project, then Guix should do the work so that people
feel included.
You may disagree with this sure, but shutting down the discussion
because nobody wrote the code for you is very elitist of you.
4.
> This language is not acceptable on Guix channel of communication.
Calling out transphobia it is very much accepted here actually :)
Its transphobic speech that is not accepted.
I welcome Software Heritage to make an announcement about this or some
kind of official communication saying their stance.
Although I still wouldn't use them due to the LLMs and AI stuff that
they are using. Which I hope at some point realize their mistake.
MSavoritias
