"Blanchard explained his thoughts on why the newly licensed code was a “clean-room” implementation."
Its not IMHO.
Starting from that, the machine in the room wasn't clean - it ate all the source codes with all the licenses, now produced washed out codes without licenses - but it doesn't have any right to strip them even asked for, neither results of that could become somehow legal - the codes used, even if remixed, are still under the same license as before, even if label about that was "lost" in the process.
And it may happen to be easy to prove - that a room with washing machine for dirty stuff there wasn't clean:
(And.. Be safe. Keep your copyrighted code - or music - out of AI reach - or you may lose any rights to them, even could be sued - with your price grabbed by machines remixing them freely so far ;)
Copyright free ?
- works produced by AI can't "loose" copyrights of used original copyrighted works, regardless of remixing - then only if no such works were used the results produced by AI can be copyrights free.
-
AI machines that don't trace that legal rights but are used to strip of them - what indeed is a robbery - shall be forbidden as criminal until that would be fixed, with respect to the law and original creators.
It looks like AI generated code can't be used legally - without respecting rights and licenses or without proving that no copyrighted code may happen to be mixed in - true only if no such was used to learn at first - what all we know, it's not the case: all is tainted by legal omissions or simply: stolen (prove otherwise - there is nothing AI invented first except hallucinations).
AI generated works can't be copyrighted as for now - but original works eaten by AI shall not be decopyrighted neither !
Then, just by preserving all attributions of pieces mixed into the answers it would be possible to distinguish what was hallucinated and slope, what was not - and what was stolen, what was not - and who is responsible for what (?)
- inconvenient ?? - to expensive ??? - Duh.
If no more AI slopes and no rights be broken - it's worth it,
- without that ? - it will be distrusted, illegal and terminal.
"Blanchard explained his thoughts on why the newly licensed code was a “clean-room” implementation."
Its not IMHO.
Starting from that, the machine in the room wasn't clean - it ate all the source codes with all the licenses, now produced washed out codes without licenses - but it doesn't have any right to strip them even asked for, neither results of that could become somehow legal - the codes used, even if remixed, are still under the same license as before, even if label about that was "lost" in the process.
And it may happen to be easy to prove - that a room with washing machine for dirty stuff there wasn't clean:
"Finetuning Activates Verbatim Recall of Copyrighted Books in LLMs" - https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.20957
(And.. Be safe. Keep your copyrighted code - or music - out of AI reach - or you may lose any rights to them, even could be sued - with your price grabbed by machines remixing them freely so far ;)
Copyright free ?
- works produced by AI can't "loose" copyrights of used original copyrighted works, regardless of remixing - then only if no such works were used the results produced by AI can be copyrights free.
-
AI machines that don't trace that legal rights but are used to strip of them - what indeed is a robbery - shall be forbidden as criminal until that would be fixed, with respect to the law and original creators.
( Let's stop AI crimes ..)
It looks like AI generated code can't be used legally - without respecting rights and licenses or without proving that no copyrighted code may happen to be mixed in - true only if no such was used to learn at first - what all we know, it's not the case: all is tainted by legal omissions or simply: stolen (prove otherwise - there is nothing AI invented first except hallucinations).
AI generated works can't be copyrighted as for now - but original works eaten by AI shall not be decopyrighted neither !
Then, just by preserving all attributions of pieces mixed into the answers it would be possible to distinguish what was hallucinated and slope, what was not - and what was stolen, what was not - and who is responsible for what (?)
- inconvenient ?? - to expensive ??? - Duh.
If no more AI slopes and no rights be broken - it's worth it,
- without that ? - it will be distrusted, illegal and terminal.
[dead]