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”. :-) Cheers, simon
