←back to thread

AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions

(github.com)
728 points freetonik | 3 comments | 21 Aug 25 18:49 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
neilv ◴[21 Aug 25 19:26 UTC] No.44976959[source]▶
There is also IP taint when using "AI". We're just pretending that there's not.

If someone came to you and said "good news: I memorized the code of all the open source projects in this space, and can regurgitate it on command", you would be smart to ban them from working on code at your company.

But with "AI", we make up a bunch of rationalizations. ("I'm doing AI agentic generative AI workflow boilerplate 10x gettin it done AI did I say AI yet!")

And we pretend the person never said that they're just loosely laundering GPL and other code in a way that rightly would be existentially toxic to an IP-based company.

replies(6): >>44976975 #>>44977217 #>>44977317 #>>44980292 #>>44980599 #>>44980775 #
ineedasername ◴[21 Aug 25 19:57 UTC] No.44977317[source]▶
Courts (at least in the US) have already ruled that use of ingested data for training is transformative. There’s lots of details to figure, but the genie is out of the bottle.

Sure it’s a big hill to climb in rethinking IP laws to align with a societal desire that generating IP continue to be a viable economic work product, but that is what’s necessary.

replies(9): >>44977525 #>>44978041 #>>44978412 #>>44978589 #>>44979766 #>>44979930 #>>44979934 #>>44980167 #>>44980236 #
1. eschaton ◴[21 Aug 25 21:58 UTC] No.44978589[source]▶
Some courts at some levels. It’s by no means settled law.
replies(1): >>44979665 #
2. bigyabai ◴[22 Aug 25 00:03 UTC] No.44979665[source]▶
Most licensed software is unsettled law, if we're being that pedantic.
replies(1): >>44981170 #
3. eschaton ◴[22 Aug 25 05:06 UTC] No.44981170[source]▶
Not really, no. If you’re specifically referring to, say, GPL or BSD or other Open Source licenses, it’s a bit more unsettled, but software licensing as a whole has several decades of case law at this point.