←back to thread

Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

(github.com)
491 points todsacerdoti | 1 comments | 25 Jun 25 23:26 UTC | HN request time: 0.205s | source
Show context
Havoc ◴[25 Jun 25 23:41 UTC] No.44382839[source]▶
I wonder whether the motivation is really legal? I get the sense that some projects are just sick of reviewing crap AI submissions
replies(6): >>44382854 #>>44382954 #>>44383005 #>>44383017 #>>44383164 #>>44383177 #
1. gerdesj ◴[26 Jun 25 00:10 UTC] No.44383017[source]▶
The policy is concise and well bounded. It seems to me to assert that you cannot safely assign attribution of authorship of software code that you think was generated algorithmically.

I use the term algorithmic because I think it is stronger than "AI lol". I note they use terms like AI code generator in the policy, which might be just as strong but looks to me as unlikely to becoming a useful legal term (its hardly "a man on the Clapham omnibus").

They finish with this, rather reasonable flourish:

"The policy we set now must be for today, and be open to revision. It's best to start strict and safe, then relax."

No doubt they do get a load of slop but they seem to want to close the legal angles down first and attribution seems a fair place to start off. This play book looks way better than curl's.