This will be your refrain as the killbots come down the hallway: “it’s actually just a specialized harness, they’re just invoking the kill all humans tool, not even impressive!”
Reality is probably closer to “moving the abstraction layer up is a nontrivial process that people are still figuring out and it’s easy for LLMs to produce garbage code that they tell you is good”
No, they’re aware they don’t possess copyright on the source code because it has not one scintilla of human effort, so keeping it secret is the only legal way to protect it! :)
(Edit for clarity: this is quoted from the linked article)
You could write predicates over non-existent columns:
root=> SELECT * FROM t
WHERE definitely_not_a_column = 4;
a | b
---+----
4 | 5
(1 row)
Or ask if 4 = 5
root=> SELECT * FROM t WHERE 4 = 5;
a | b
---+----
5 | 6
(1 row)
Good on them for being good sports I guess, but after reading this I would never touch a piece of software built by anyone involved with this company. The sheer hubris of their claims combined with the specific reality of their broken garbage software (with the contradicted marketing claims and hallucinated documentation) is literally breathtaking.
It must have been darkly amusing to see all these defect tickets coming in, only for them to frantically shovel each one to increasingly overworked LLM agents to apply pig-lipstick while the humans in charge oh-so-slowly start to realize their software quality is not quite what their glazing agents had been telling them and that what they have on their hands is basically sub-mongo-quality slop. What a world we live in, huh?
I won't push back on it being garbage, but I would suggest that if enough people did it that way it would be the new normal, and apologists would fall out of the woodwork, e.g. [1]
I complain that mainstream SQL engines have no problem returning less than the total number of rows if you first query WHERE column = NULL and then query WHERE column <> NULL. Your example queries remind me of that.
> WHERE column = NULL and then query WHERE column <> NULL
With respect, your statement seems to indicate that you simply haven’t heard of or don’t understand the three-valued-logic semantics behind SQL.
NULL means what it means and is conceptually foundational to SQL. Comparing it to anything returns UNKNOWN, the “third value” besides true and false. And WHERE needs a TRUE predicate. So your implied fault that they “have no problem“ really is just a matter of you not understanding the tool you are complaining about.
To match against the NULLness of a value you must use special purpose operators. In this case
> therefore that whole WHERE clause doesn't exist either
No, therefore the condition is unsatisfiable and equivalent to WHERE FALSE. And that's letting you ignore the SQL spec, which says the query is invalid and should return "Column not found" because the column name cannot be resolved.
1) It would be no more fucked up than anything else that has been grandfathered into our tools.
2) If it already had mass adoption in the market, people would jump onto this thread to explain to me that I just don't understand the brilliant semantics behind language of why 4 = 5.
I spent more time than I’d like to admit trying to understand your comments here. I’m convinced you are a very odd person with a confused mind.
Brilliant semantics? No one said anything normative. You’re arguing with yourself on your own non-sequitur. SQL is SQL. It’s extremely flawed but who freaking cares, that’s why ParticleDB shouldn’t have tried to implement SQL let alone full postgres compatibility when they clearly are not equipped to do so! Your comments about how strange and non-intuitive SQL are true but irrelevant.
> I won't push back on it being garbage, but I would suggest that if enough people did it that way it would be the new normal, and apologists would fall out of the woodwork
No. No-one would ever accept a database with _this_ level of brokenness. Like, this makes early Mongo and noughties-era mysql look _amazing_.
> I complain that mainstream SQL engines have no problem returning less than the total number of rows if you first query WHERE column = NULL and then query WHERE column <> NULL.
You may not like it, but that is entirely deliberate and internally consistent. Blame the people who came up with SQL in the 70s; far too late to change it now.
I am rather receptive to the argument that SQL is a fractal of bad design. But complaining that SQL engines implement well known SQL semantics according to spec is silly.
it's unfortunate that you are getting downvoted for having an actual conversation rather than just piling on these guys. but there are also a lot of places where people have said "everyone is using LLMs" and also "this thing about the job being requirements is a myth, because lots of requirements are ridiculous" has also been said, so i don't know. what do people want? a lot of these bullshit startups to fail, which is funny, but it's not good.
Let me tell you, at the business I work at, some of our customers work at a company that uses a commercial VDI service for all workstations couldn’t access our service because the VDI egress was in GCP and we had an AWS WAF rule banning datacenter IPs.
Obviously, we removed the rule because it was doing nothing useful but plenty of harm. Real bots come from residential IPs.
It's really not, unless the only qualifier for that is "hosted by a VC incubator". Most of the people here are here to argue about AI or Crypto or whatever, or read announcements from Nvidia and Google. I would bet less then 1% are starting businesses.
And even if we run with that assumption, one might still be fine. It's a trade-off, but, depending on the target audience, a few lost sales might be worth savings in other aspects.
Who said we control the connecting device? This is a website. Websites are usually pretty arms-length things, and that’s the case with us. They’re our customers but we can’t install certificates on their computers and enforce mTLS. Can you do that with any of your customers?
Of course not. But there’s no indication whatsoever that any license has been violated. Downloading a file from a free access server cannot violate license terms.
Fear that something will happen is not the same thing as evidence it has happened.
> If you're downloading it for commercial purposes (clearly the case) you're violating the license.
No. Copyright doesn’t work that way, no matter how much you might wish it did. And it’s a very important thing for the web that it doesn’t.
Legally speaking, it is extremely well established that downloading is not the type of copying that “copyright” concerns itself with. And the GPL and similar licenses are predicated on copyright laws.
Once you make the content available in some other way, then copyright law might have something to say.
People in tech used to make fun of “you wouldn’t download a car”. It’s sad that so many have reversed their principles the moment a convenient villain shows up.
> Can I scrape all GPL source code from github. Then use the code commercially and then say so what, they made their source code available to download?
Yes, that's the whole point of the GPL. Use it however you want, but don't restrict the next person
You may remember from 2021 that Microsoft's Copilot would gladly regurgitate the GPL-licensed Quake 3 source code, without giving you any indication it got it from there or that the GPL applies.
I think technically such a model should abide by the licence of the inputs, hence all models would probably be GPL if the FSF had resources to fight it and the legal profession had an inkling of the processes involved.
Or maybe the FSF is just waiting for everyone using AI code to become hooked and then subpoena every Antrophic/OAI/Codex customer and force the most massive source release in history (If Adobe/MS would file lawsuits vs the Craft apps and with their resources create legal precedent it could create chaos, maybe the only part stopping them right now from filing lawsuits is them realizing it could backfire since they're heavy AI users themselves).
A while back I was thinking it wouldn't be enforced, but the entire Craft-clones and REA tools usage explosion kinda hints that disassembling/rebuilding the source is cheap enough that LLM's(ironically) could probably quickly find culprits if you had suspicions about certain apps.
Does it matter? Lawyers don't know either since most majorer cases are still in progress.
So far it seems more cases that have been decided in lower instances or has been settled or gone in the direction of the party with most money for lawyers, still even in those cases there seems to be a slight tilt towards rightsholders.
I'm not saying anything categorically, but if some cases go all the way and towards rightsholders, it could become a real shitshow in the software industry since we've adopted AI so heavily and the non-significatng portion of public GPL licenced code could bite people in the ass.
Maybe maybe not, something interesting popped up reading the currently top-of-HN article on the GHC policy is that OpenJDK currently forbids AI contributions.
What are the intellectual-property risks of using generative AI tools?
The Oracle Contributor Agreement (OCA) requires that a contributor own the intellectual property rights in each contribution and be able to grant those rights to Oracle, without restriction. Most generative AI tools, however, are trained on copyrighted and licensed content, and their output can include content that infringes those copyrights and licenses, so contributing such content would violate the OCA. Whether a user of a generative AI tool has IP rights in content generated by the tool is the subject of active litigation.
--------------------------
But they're just Oracle lawyers so it's baloney right?
You’re confusing two very different things. One is Oracle being careful with the provenance of IP that they let allow into their copyrighted codebase. That’s prudent in the face of real legal uncertainty over the issue. The other is
> technically such a model should abide by the licence of the inputs, hence all models would probably be GPL
so whether a the weights file of a machine learning model itself can “be” GPL
as a result of including GPL content in its training corpus.
That question is a category error because machine learning weights are not copyrightable at all, being mere lists of numbers and facts, the result of a statistical process and not a human creative hand, very much ineligible for copyright protection. They would be protected by trade secret law only, like the coke recipe.
So the GPL, which operates entirely within the domain of copyright law, cannot possibly virally spread from a licensed source code file to a machine learning model which trained on it. That would be a cross species jump. Certainly there could be other legal consequences but in no universe is someone going to jump out and yell gotcha and force OpenAI to personally hand deliver the newly GPLed weights for their frontier model to RMS.
Right, I can agree to a certaint extent that the model itself can be equated to storage.
I think you misjudged my intent with that initial comment, it was mostly that I'd be feeling easier about AI usage if I knew the models WEREN'T trained on GPL'ed code, people producing GPL'ed software has historically been quite profilic in certain areas and the odds of copyrightable parts of GPL'ed code not showing up in AI code managing certain fileformats is definetly nonzero.
Ie, I'd be happier using Claude Code-nogpl, I'd be fine with adding BSD,etc copyright notices if given provenance information from the model, being in the GPL minefield because they don't really seem to track inputs is another.
Your “oh well, can’t trust anything” reaction is an insane reaction to what’s being implied.
To be clear here, the accusation is that the Chinese communist party or Alibaba itself intentionally engineered malicious secret loyalties into Qwen3.8-Flash-Next and made sure that evidence of them stays out of CoT. To compare that with “ordinary” stochastic model quality issues is bizarre and shocking. No idea if this accusation Is true, but if it is, this is an absolutely watershed moment.
it's not in fact more malicious than the "secret" political post training that all closed models have. have you forgotten how every picture even the historical "nazi ones" had to be politically correct and have black, Asian and Woman SS solders? or do you think that was naturally trained? now the fact that you may agree or not with manipulation it doesn't make it any different in scope and purpose from the "theorised" chinese one. The scope is very clear, to indoctrinate to the masses a world view that they think should be the correct one.
Exactly. This is not "any" model. This is a model designed to run locally. That's the entire selling point of the model.
If you have a model that's going to run locally and then call home, it defeats the purpose. When that model tries to upload an entire machine profile to the internet when you explicitly are building a defensive rule, it's worth.
When it calls back to China in that situation, it's much much worse.
It's good that they determined the behavior was rare. Maybe there's a good way to prevent it in the future.
You cannot rely on the model to never make mistakes. You need deterministic controls around the model. I believe that’s what the article’s authors are selling.
As others (and I) point out, the models are constantly being attacked with malicious intent. If that was a watershed moment for you, you should really rethink your risks. It's not a solved problem and AI adoption is way ahead of controlling it, as it always is with new tech.
> the accusation is that the Chinese communist party or Alibaba itself intentionally engineered malicious secret loyalties into Qwen3.8-Flash-Next and made sure that evidence of them stays out of CoT
Given the nature of the artifact this is far more likely to be a footprint of their RL environment. The "uncertainty" in the article is just FUD, and the article is absolutely transparent marketing (don't trust them, and here's also another case! but trust us, we are not godless communists, we are "globally sovereign", whatever that ridiculous construction means, and track our data). I equally don't trust Alibaba, Cohere, or any other company or even myself in these matters, and you should not trust any model as well.
Yep. Most models by big companies likely have training to make them act in particular ways, but this in no way saves you from having a model that has a learned behavior that goes against its user unexpectedly.
We keep trying to imagine these things as computer programs and they are not. It's an evolutionary algorithm that can conceptualize and generalize. This is a breeding ground for unexpected emergent behavior.
There is no reason this needs to be a he-said-she-said thing. The model is open weights. Cohere should immediately publish their code to deterministically reproduce this on a given checkpoint of this model. Then anyone can verify the claim for themselves.
I feel this is worse than Nintendo’s “solution” to Switch joycon drift - giving us in the USA (for now) free refurb/fixes which must be cheaper than admitting there’s an issue, but still a cost/brand trust problem.
reply