AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions

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.

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.

>societal desire that generating IP continue to be a viable economic work product

It is strange that you think the law is settled when I don't think even this "societal desire" is completely settled just yet.

Maybe I should clarify: Society, in general, supports the idea that writers, artists, film makers, coders, etc— everyone who creates IP- should have a place in the economy. Basically just that it should be possible to make a living and have a career at it. It can be spun different ways, and those differences are important, but this is the basic thing.

This doesn’t seem like a disputable statement to me. For anyone who thinks actors’ likenesses, authors’ words, all of it- that all and everything should be up for grabs once written or put anywhere in public, that is not a widely held opinion.

Once that’s established, it all comes down to implementation details.