Clojurians Log v2
ai-skeptics
The legal aspects of LLM usage is bewildering, and probably contributes to why feet are getting cold when it comes to disclosing AI contributions in code bases. Below are a couple of recent HN discussions that helped me catch up a bit on the copyright side of things in the US, though the same questions exist elsewhere. • Honesty gets Emacs patch rejected: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48681557 • Ask HN: Is "no source code was copied" still a sufficient copyright defense?: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48689939 Again AI blows out of proportion all the warts in our ways of doing things. I'd say most of the world is still in the FA part of FAFO, while the US is edging towards FO, which may lead us into a stricter way of recording AI contributions in order to refine the concept of what can be copyrighted. Not sure what other outcomes could preserve the current state of affairs.
If you get sued for infringing code, in the US, the person saying you stole their code has to register their code and disclose each part of it that was generated by AI. And the defendant can argue and ask for a panel of expert review to assess if more code was generated by AI and so on. Only after you've shown the code is human written, then you can claim the copyright. So ya, AI generated code in the US is public domain, unless you've heavily modified it in novel ways, so not just fixing some typos, bugs, and style.
I always thought that US was very litigation heavy wrt IP rights, but I haven't heard about big cases against LLM uses, which is surprising