Right and Wrong

New comment
 
When I want to write a new code for an EA, I sometimes browse the forum for ideas. Luckily after intense searches of generally 2-3 hours I get to see articles or codes which can solve my problem and with some VERY MINOR tweaks, I can get it to work for me too… 
Recently, I got an odd request as a freelancer. It was to solve a problem a programmer had and he was willing to pay for it. I spent hours surfing the forum before I found the solution, interpreted it and sent the final product to him. 
Now the problem is that in the rules, MQL5 says that selling, copying of materials is prohibited and you can get banned for it. Am I supposed to charge for the job or delete the application. NOTE: I did not tamper with the copyrights in anyway. 
In my defense, I could claim the charge was for my professional opinion but can you help clarify if it is right or against the rules. 
Thanks! 
 
I have found copies without reference even among published sources in codebase. Your concern is too ethical.
 
Yashar Seyyedin #:
I have found copies without reference even among published sources in codebase. Your concern is too ethical.
So no worries then? I just wanted to be sure, you know. 
 

I agree with Yashar .

You were paid to create a gem or find a gem . You found a gem .

Kudos for the ethos 

 
Lorentzos Roussos #:

I agree with Yashar .

You were paid to create a gem or find a gem . You found a gem .

Kudos for the ethos 

Thank you very much Lorentzos 
 

"Funny" topic, where we can see from the answers the tweaked mentality of some people participating to freelance jobs.

3.9. You agree that You will not reproduce, duplicate, copy, sell, trade or resell the content of the website www.mql5.com, unless you have been specifically permitted to do so in a separate agreement with MetaQuotes Ltd. You must retain all copyright and other proprietary notices contained in the original materials on any copy You make of the materials of the Content. You may not modify the Content in any way or publicly display, reproduce or distribute it. The website www.mql5.com is the property of MetaQuotes Ltd. The MetaQuotes Ltd Websites are protected by international copyright laws. Any unauthorized use of the MetaQuotes Ltd Websites may violate copyright laws, trademark laws and other laws.

This is very clear.

Terms of Use of MQL5 community
Terms of Use of MQL5 community
  • www.mql5.com
Terms of Use of MQL5 community website and different traders services.
 
Alain Verleyen #:

"Funny" topic, where we can see from the answers the tweaked mentality of some people participating to freelance jobs.

This is very clear.

Thank you for your response 
 
Alain Verleyen #:

"Funny" topic, where we can see from the answers the tweaked mentality of some people participating to freelance jobs.

This is very clear.

AI will replace the tweaked mentality sooner or later.
 
Yashar Seyyedin #:
AI will replace the tweaked mentality sooner or later.
Honestly, I don't think it will. It is already very questionable when coming to arts, generated by AI, trained on work of existing real people.

It will just expand the question, is an inherent information already present in a neural network, or is it injected by training. And if it is injected, who owns these specific properties of that neural network? The GPU? The Trainer/coder?

Or is it more like a blending.

Imagine this, you take some ingredients and mix them to some new magic medicine. Although you created something new, if one of your initial ingredients is owned by someone else, is the new juice all yours?

In this example, you could argue, you bought the ingredients, but what about the data used for training an AI, have they been bought? And if not, and you use these data to train your network, then certain features and parameters will be a representation of your input.

Now if this NN produces an output and uses some of these specific parameters, will there be a copyright mark, a transparent note about the sources licensing? Well, no.

So, who owns the code generated by an AI?

Or, another example. Imagine you give a class and you reference source code from the internet, a student (AI) takes your teachings and creates some more code, based on what you have shown in class. He will use parts of the lesson, and add other parts from another source. Who owns the code? Especially for AI, as it is unable to "create" new code from its own creativity, there is nothing "new" coming from an AI. It's just a new arrangement of what has been given to it.

This opens a totally new discussion, more of the nature of philosophy, as underlying we would need to answer fundamentals like what is creativity and where is the source of such.

I think it could be interesting to look at patents in this regard, as you cannot patent anything that's not new, innovative or groundbreaking.

I don't think AI will solve this, as it is inherently in its own nature.

For AI based solely on genetic algorithms, I think the discussion would be a totally different one, as it could be argued, there is no pretreated input, and therefore the features and parameters of the neural network are more of a random type. So, in this regard, an AI produced output could be at least not based on any others work than the coder/creator of that NN. And I personally would claim the creator as the holder of the IP produced by the NN.


 
Dominik Christian Egert #:
Honestly, I don't think it will. It is already very questionable when coming to arts, generated by AI, trained on work of existing real people.

It will just expand the question, is an inherent information already present in a neural network, or is it injected by training. And if it is injected, who owns these specific properties of that neural network? The GPU? The Trainer/coder?

Or is it more like a blending.

Imagine this, you take some ingredients and mix them to some new magic medicine. Although you created something new, if one of your initial ingredients is owned by someone else, is the new juice all yours?

In this example, you could argue, you bought the ingredients, but what about the data used for training an AI, have they been bought? And if not, and you use these data to train your network, then certain features and parameters will be a representation of your input.

Now if this NN produces an output and uses some of these specific parameters, will there be a copyright mark, a transparent note about the sources licensing? Well, no.

So, who owns the code generated by an AI?

Or, another example. Imagine you give a class and you reference source code from the internet, a student (AI) takes your teachings and creates some more code, based on what you have shown in class. He will use parts of the lesson, and add other parts from another source. Who owns the code? Especially for AI, as it is unable to "create" new code from its own creativity, there is nothing "new" coming from an AI. It's just a new arrangement of what has been given to it.

This opens a totally new discussion, more of the nature of philosophy, as underlying we would need to answer fundamentals like what is creativity and where is the source of such.

I think it could be interesting to look at patents in this regard, as you cannot patent anything that's not new, innovative or groundbreaking.

I don't think AI will solve this, as it is inherently in its own nature.

For AI based solely on genetic algorithms, I think the discussion would be a totally different one, as it could be argued, there is no pretreated input, and therefore the features and parameters of the neural network are more of a random type. So, in this regard, an AI produced output could be at least not based on any others work than the coder/creator of that NN. And I personally would claim the creator as the holder of the IP produced by the NN.


That's opens up an interesting topic . 

Maybe the "ai" will be "allowed" to learn but not replicate a sample within a threshold of similarity . So a "face" ai would not be allowed to "create" my face or your face but it could learn faces from both . In a way regulation would be an obstacle on the development of the "commercial" "ai" so training would have to be illegal or regulations will loosen up . 

 
Lorentzos Roussos #:

That's opens up an interesting topic . 

Maybe the "ai" will be "allowed" to learn but not replicate a sample within a threshold of similarity . So a "face" ai would not be allowed to "create" my face or your face but it could learn faces from both . In a way regulation would be an obstacle on the development of the "commercial" "ai" so training would have to be illegal or regulations will loosen up . 

Like if I paint a landscape and you paint a landscape, are they both unique, and can be considered independent works?

What if someone gets inspired by these two paintings and creates his own, is it unique?

What if another person "copies" some of your painting and copies some of my painting and adds the missing pieces from the third painting, is it unique?

Well, maybe it's unique, but is it inherently original? Or is it a compilation of other work?

Let's say, I take 3 source files of random sources and put them together to form a new program, I compile it, is the resulting binary now my work?

Let's say, I decompile that binary again, and I distribute that source file, is it my work, my creation?

Let's break it down a little more, a NN takes input and produces output. Let's take 7zip. It takes input and produces output.

I think, this could be argued, because a zip contains a dictionary and a list of links to that dictionary. Somewhat similar to a NN, it takes input, stores these inputs in parameters, so this could be seen as the dictionary. And it produces a resolved output, instead of a list of links to a dictionary.

So it could be argued, the NN itself is part of the output, as it is required to reproduce the output.

Same goes for the zip file. The dictionary is required to produce the output.

So, does the content of the zip file now belong to the person that coded the zip-software, or does the dictionary belong to that person?

If carried over to AI, do the parameters of the NN belong to the cider/trainer?

I think, it is very clear, this will not be the case.

So, if this analogy holds up, the result of an NN is the property of the providers to the "dictionary" and therefore the original sources are the owners of the result produced by the NN.

My personal opinion.

A totally different aspect to genetic algorithms is the fact, if a genetic algorithm "finds" a solution from randomness, does randomness contain all solutions? And if so, has there ever been "innovation", or was it just a finding of a solution within a search space?

Anyways, this will lead to lots of discussion on a very broad field of philosophy, legal aspects and for sure personal approaches to tasks and questions, mankind has not solved for thousands of years.

I personally think current NNs and AI is somewhere at the stage of 300bps Modems or acustic couplers... It has just begun, and there will be much more down the road. GPT5, I would say, already show the fundamental issues with the structures that are used for NNs nowadays. There will be an end to such models sooner or later.

These approaches lack the possibility of self reflection, as they are, although very complex, just functions, deterministic. One Input produces one output.

Humans do not work like that, they are non-deterministic, and I think that's the main source of intelligence and creativity. Only god knows why we decide how we decide.

But even this can be argued, as it is evident, we cannot make decisions at all, because at the point where we get conscious knowledge about how we decide, we already have decided for us.

There is a nice video that explains this concept in a nice and easy way to understand what I am trying to point out here, concerning our ability to make decisions. I can look it up and share if requested.
123
New comment
Reason: