If LLM assisted reverse engineering is deemed illegal by the courts, is that precedent for a class action that asserts OSS licenses are violated by labs that trained LLMs on that code?
There are two modalities for this;
1) LLM being post-trained against a decompiled binary - then used to output working source code.
2) LLM being used to analyze decompiled binary and used to output working source code.
How can it be "clean room" when an LLM is trained on or reads OSS but not clean room when the same is done for decompiled software?
[–] xlayn 4 hours ago
[–] verdverm 4 hours ago
[–] apatheticonion 4 hours ago
Can an LLM be "clean room"? Are weights trained on decompiled code considered "tainted"?
[–] verdverm 3 hours ago
Trade secrets have no legal protection
[–] apatheticonion 3 hours ago
[–] verdverm 3 hours ago
Sandy Monroe is a great current example, tears down cars and builds reports. The auto industry has distillation built in
However, the intent to reverse engineer without source--only public API and analysis of data streams--for commercial use almost certainly violates OSS, since it's to evade strictures.
Private use like retrocomputing, "right to repair," should support the individual.
Basically, if LLM's output is relicensed for different intent, courts should see through that.