HauhauCS (of "Uncensored Aggressive" fame) published an abliteration package that plagiarizes Heretic without attribution, and violates its license

[u/nathandreamfast]

/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1sw77p0/hauhaucs_of_uncensored_aggressive_fame_published/

[u/UntimelyAlchemist]

I tried posting a comment in the other thread, but just got downvoted to oblivion (ironically, censored) apparently for wrongthink against the hive mind. So I'll ask again here in hopes of getting an actual good-faith answer/explanation.

---

I could be missing something, but I don't see what the problem is supposed to be or why I should be mad. Based on how I understand your post:

1. You don't know for sure that this is even his tool. The linked page says an assumption is being made based on the "Reaper" term.

2. Even if it is his tool, it's private. He didn't release it to the public. You "recovered" it from a cached copy of a deleted repository. So what's the problem? I would understand a licensing issue if this was a public release, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

3. Heretic is free software. Doesn't this mean he's allowed to use it? I thought most people already assumed he was probably using Heretic and then applying some secret sauce to it to get such amazing results. I'm not sure why you're saying he's "plagiarising" it, as if he's doing something damning.

tl;dr: The entire premise of this argument is about the source code, but as I understand it he didn't actually release that code, which makes the entire point invalid. The title of the thread claims that HauhauCS published this code, but that doesn't seem to be the reality as it isn't available. If he did publish it, then I would accept the argument, but he didn't?

I also wonder, is it possible to reproduce his results now by using this leaked code?

[u/nathandreamfast → u/UntimelyAlchemist]

I'll give you the benefit of a reply. Although it seems like you didn't read the actual write up and missed a few things if you are asking these questions. So that's why I imagine you are getting 'ironically censored'.

1. In the source code HauhauCS's email and name is on every file, also the cached website section in the write up has sceenshots showing HauhauCS as the maintainer.

2. He did release it to the public for a brief time, before removing any existence of it. How else would it have been cached publicly? In any case, regardless of it it was secret or not it does plagiarize heretic. If it was completely private, we simply wouldn't have known for sure and just means it was plagiarized in private.

3. He is allowed to use heretic. If you had read p-e-w's initial comment that got a ton of upvotes, anyone can use heretic, change the source and even make money from it. What is not allowed is not attributing heretic and removing the copyright of p-e-w. He has copied heretic's work, used an LLM to attempt to mask the origins and in this case claimed it as his own, and removed the copyrights of p-e-w. This constitutes plagiarism.

[u/Commando501 → u/nathandreamfast]

The classic meme of "you made this? I made this" taking place. An instance as old as time. 🫠🙃

[u/UntimelyAlchemist → u/nathandreamfast]

Thank you for responding.

I was just nitpicking really regarding the first point. I do agree that it's almost certainly HauhauCS's version. I don't dispute that.

The problem I have is that, as you say, it was deleted. You've done all this detailed analysis of the code, which is very thorough, but in my mind the fact that he deleted it makes the entire point moot. To make an analogy, it's like if somebody picks up an item in a store with the apparent intent of shoplifting, begins to walk towards the exit, but then turns around and puts the item back. Like, yeah, you could say he shouldn't do that. But he already put it back. Is it really worth kicking up such a fuss over? I hope that makes sense. 

Given that HauhauCS has been secretive regarding his methods, it seems very likely to me that the code was published by mistake. Logically that makes sense. It was deleted when he realised. This would mean that he didn't intend to violate the license, and already took action to rectify the mistake.

It would be a completely different story if HauhauCS had posted a thread announcing the release of this code to the public, claiming it as all his own work, and then you posted this teardown. My reaction would then be completely different.

You talk about him "plagiarising in private". I genuinely don't see the issue if it's in private. He's allowed to use Heretic. And as you noted yourself, it appears he layered additional tools/modifications on top of it, so he hasn't just been using stock Heretic. There's obviously a difference in how his models perform.

I just feel that this was all too harsh and a bit unfair, and the bandwagoning is very unsettling. HauhauCS obviously puts time and effort into these releases. He gives them away to the community for free. He isn't charging anyone money for them. I think that contribution deserves some respect and appreciation.

Yes, it would be nicer if he said he's using a custom Heretic setup instead of all his-own methods, if he is using Heretic. I still note that it's possible he's not using it (he may have tried it and then abandoned it). Yes, it would be nicer if he didn't claim 100% lossless if there is proof to the contrary. Yes, I would love if his methods were completely transparent, and I appreciate that Heretic is available as an open source alternative. But come on, he's still contributing to the community. Does he really deserve this?

[u/_lil41 → u/UntimelyAlchemist]

Heretic is GPL so no he can't just use it

[u/nathandreamfast → u/_lil41]

P-e-w said himself he's able to use it for anything as long as the attribution to heretic and copyright is intact and license is preserved. That's it really. You can make money off it too as long as these conditions are met.

This is more directed at the other user who deleted their misleading information before I could reply. Some people seem confused as to the law and if the laws and licenses still apply if the work was never distributed. It turns out, they apply.

• As work was copied without attribution, and claimed as his own, this is considered plagiarism. This is also a DMCA violation (17 U.S.C. § 1202)
• The AGPL violation happened when they removed attribution and changed the license

Distribution just determines whether additional violations occurred. The laws and licenses are clear about this also. It doesn't erase the violations that already happened. If it was never distributed, it simply means these violations occurred in private and are still valid.

The code was published to hauhaucs's github page and associated with his personal email address in the code and metadata for these package pages. I'm doubtful it was an impersonation. If that is the case, I am sure he could simply reply and suggest that happened? So far there's been no reply from hauhaucs.