You must log in or register to comment.
As it should. All the idiots calling themselves programmers, because they tell crappy chatbot what to write, based on stolen knowledge. What warms my heart a little is the fact that I poisoned everything I ever wrote on StackOverflow just enough to screw with AI slopbots. I hope I contributed my grain of sand into making this shit little worse.
Do it in a way that a human can understand but AI fails. I remember my days and you guys are my mvp helping me figure shit out.
That’s not what that research document says. Pretty early on it talks about rote mechanical processes with no human input. By the logic they employ there’s no difference between LLM code and a photographer using Photoshop.
That sounds like complete bullshit to me. Even if the logic is sound, which I seriously doubt, if you use someone’s code and you claim their license isn’t valid because some part of the codebase is AI generated, I’m pretty sure you’ll have to prove that. Good luck.
If there was an actual civil suit you’d probably be able to subpoena people for that information, and the standard is only more likely than not. I have no idea if the general idea is bullshit, though.
IANAL
You forgot the heart
I ♥️ ANAL
Would that be North African Lawyer, or North American Lawyer?
In any case, we’re splitting the cheque. /s
By that same logic LLMs themselves (by now some AI bro had to vibe code something there) & their trained datapoints (which were on stolen data anyway) should be public domain.
What revolutionary force can legislate and enforce this?? Pls!?
By that same logic LLMs themselves (by now some AI bro had to vibe code something there)
I’m guessing LLMs are still really really bad at that kind of programming. The packaging of the LLM, sure.
& their trained datapoints
I’m guessing for legal purposes the weights were generated by the human-made training algorithm. I have no idea if that’s copyrightable under US law. The standard approach seems to be to keep them a trade secret and pretend there’s no espionage, though.
The packaging of the LLM, sure.
Yes, totally, but OP says a small bit affects “possibly the whole project” so I wanted to point out that includes prob AIs, Windows, etc too.
I had a similar thought. If LLMs and image models do not violate copyright, they could be used to copyright-wash everything.
Just train a model on source code of the company you work for or the copyright protected material you have access to, release that model publicly and then let a friend use it to reproduce the secret, copyright protected work.
btw this is happening actuallt AI trained on copyrighted material and it’s repeating similar or sometimes verbatim copies but license-free :D
Is Windows FOSS now?
Ew, no, thank you, I don’t want it.
Didn’t sources leak multiple times
This whole post has a strong ‘Sovereign Citizen’ vibe.
I do not give Facebook or any entities associated with Facebook permission to use my pictures, information, messages, or posts, both past and future.
The Windows FOSS part, sure, but unenforceable copyright seems quite possible, but probably not court-tested. I mean, AI basically ignored copyright to train in the first place, and there is precedent for animals not getting copyright for taking pictures.
If it’s not court tested, I’m guessing we can assume a legal theory that breaks all software licensing will not hold up.
Like, maybe the code snippets that are AI-made themselves can be stolen, but not different parts of the project.
https://reuse.software/faq/#uncopyrightable
The REUSE specification recommends claiming copyright even if it’s machine generated. Is this incorrect information?
EDIT: Also, how is copyrighting code from an AI different than copyrighting an output from a compiler?
I believe it was a product of the earlier conflict between copyright owners and AIs on the training side. The compromise was that they could train on copyright data but lose any copyright protections on the output of the AI.
Aren’t you all forgetting the core meaning of open source? The source code is not openly accessible, thus it can’t be FOSS or even OSS
This just means microslop can’t enforce their licenses, making it legal to pirate that shit
It’s just the code that’s not under copyright, so if someone leaked it you could legally copy and distribute any parts which are AI generated but it wouldn’t invalidate copyright on the official binaries.
If all the code were AI generated (or enough of it to be able to fill in the blanks), you might be able to make a case that it’s legal to build and distribute binaries, but why would you bother distributing that slop?
Even if it were leaked, it would still likely be very difficult to prove that any one component was machine generated from a system trained on publicly accessible code.
You willing to take on Microsoft lawyers to find out?
How do you prove some codebase was AI generated?
This might be true, but it is practically unenforceable.
I think expert software developers can quickly address AI code
Agentic IDEs like Cursor track usage and how much of the code is LLM vs human generated.
Which probably means it tracks every single keystroke inside it. Which rightfully looks like a privacy and/or corporate code ownership nightmare.
But hey at least our corporate overlords are happy to see the trend go up. The fact that we tech people were all very unsubtly threatened into forced agentic IDEs usage despite vocal concerns about code quality drop, productivity losses and increasing our dependence on US tech (especially openly nazi tech) says it all.
Public domain ≠ FOSS
How the hell did he arrive at the conclusion there was some sort of one-drop rule for non-protected works.
Just because the registration is blocked if you don’t specify which part is the result of human creativity, doesn’t mean the copyright on the part that is the result of human creativity is forfeit.
Copyright exists even before registration, registration just makes it easier to enforce. And nobody says you can’t just properly refile for registration of the part that is the result of human creativity.
Yeah, a lot of copyright law in the US is extremely forgiving towards creators making mistakes. For example, you can only file for damages after you register the copyright, but you can register after the damages. So like if I made a book, someone stole it and starting selling copies, I could register for a copyright afterwards. Which honestly is for the best. Everything you make inherently has copyright. This comment, once I click send, will be copyrighted. It would just senselessly create extra work for the government and small creators if everything needed to be registered to get the protections.
Edit: As an example of this, this is why many websites in their terms of use have something like “you give us the right to display your work” because, in some sense, they don’t have the right to do that unless you give them the right. Because you have a copyright on it. Displaying work over the web is a form of distribution.
Is this how it works? I would be shocked if this was actually how it works.
Nah, laws being like they are the copyright probably belongs to whatever cartel owns the bot you used to perpetrate the code, because fuck human people, that’s why, laws are for corporations’ benefit, not for yours.
Something something “Those the law binds but does not protect and those the law protects but does not bind.”
So by that reasoning all Microsoft software is open source
Not that we’d want it, it’s horrendously bad, but still
