←back to thread

494 points todsacerdoti | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.222s | source
Show context
benlivengood ◴[] No.44383064[source]
Open source and libre/free software are particularly vulnerable to a future where AI-generated code is ruled to be either infringing or public domain.

In the former case, disentangling AI-edits from human edits could tie a project up in legal proceedings for years and projects don't have any funding to fight a copyright suit. Specifically, code that is AI-generated and subsequently modified or incorporated in the rest of the code would raise the question of whether subsequent human edits were non-fair-use derivative works.

In the latter case the license restrictions no longer apply to portions of the codebase raising similar issues from derived code; a project that is only 98% OSS/FS licensed suddenly has much less leverage in takedowns to companies abusing the license terms; having to prove that infringers are definitely using the human-generated and licensed code.

Proprietary software is only mildly harmed in either case; it would require speculative copyright owners to disassemble their binaries and try to make the case that AI-generated code infringed without being able to see the codebase itself. And plenty of proprietary software has public domain code in it already.

replies(8): >>44383156 #>>44383218 #>>44383229 #>>44384184 #>>44385081 #>>44385229 #>>44386155 #>>44387156 #
AJ007 ◴[] No.44383229[source]
I understand what experienced developers don't want random AI contributions from no-knowledge "developers" contributing to a project. In any situation, if a human is review AI code line by line that would tie up humans for years, even ignoring anything legally.

#1 There will be no verifiable way to prove something was AI generated beyond early models.

#2 Software projects that somehow are 100% human developed will not be competitive with AI assisted or written projects. The only room for debate on that is an apocalypse level scenario where humans fail to continue producing semiconductors or electricity.

#3 If a project successfully excludes AI contributions (not clear how other than controlling contributions to a tight group of anti-AI fanatics), it's just going to be cloned, and the clones will leave it in the dust. If the license permits forking then it could be forked too, but cloning and purging any potential legal issues might be preferred.

There still is a path for open source projects. It will be different. There's going to be much, much more software in the future and it's not going to be all junk (although 99% might.)

replies(16): >>44383277 #>>44383278 #>>44383309 #>>44383367 #>>44383381 #>>44383421 #>>44383553 #>>44383615 #>>44383810 #>>44384306 #>>44384448 #>>44384472 #>>44385173 #>>44386408 #>>44387925 #>>44389059 #
1. A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 ◴[] No.44383381[source]
I am of two minds of it having now seen both good coders augmented by AI and bad coders further diminished by it ( I would even argue its worse than stack overflow, because back then they would at least would have had to adjust code a little bit ).

I am personally somewhere in the middle, just good enough to know I am really bad at this so I make sure that I don't contribute to anything that is actually important ( like QEMU ).

But how many people recognize their own strengths and weaknesses? That is part of the problem and now we are proposing that even that modicum of self-regulation ( as flawed as it is ) be removed.

FWIW, I hear you. I also don't have an answer. Just thinking out loud.