LLM Code and FOSS licenses are in conflict. (www.youtube.com)
from Gonzako@lemmy.world to programming@programming.dev on 21 Mar 23:39
https://lemmy.world/post/44571475

#programming

threaded - newest

ell1e@leminal.space on 22 Mar 06:36 next collapse

Some highlights from this talk: github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy-docs/issues/413#issueco… Quote: “Obvious, this is a copyright infringement.”

xthexder@l.sw0.com on 22 Mar 19:16 collapse

This was linked in the discussion there, and I think I’m a fan: sciactive.com/human-contribution-policy/

I’m definitely considering adding something like this to my projects.

fubarx@lemmy.world on 22 Mar 06:39 collapse

Fascinating talk.

According to the U.S. copyright office and Library of Congress, copyrighted works require a ‘human’ element: www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10922

If art generated by AI can not be copyrighted, it may well extend to AI-generated code. If so, the implications could be pretty far-reaching.

The one, practical use-case of AI that has found ‘product market fit’ so far has been using AI for coding. Companies are encouraging it. Developers (including experienced ones) are starting to use more of it. But if it turns out none of the generated output can be copyrighted, then you lose all the commercial users who are the revenue sources for all these tools and companies.

This talk feels like it’s touching on a pretty important topic.

abbadon420@sh.itjust.works on 22 Mar 09:12 collapse

To be fair, this doesn’t mean you can’t use AI as a tool. An artist or a software developer can generate things with AI and orchestrate the pieces to become a new whole. That whole could still be copyrighted.

tabular@lemmy.world on 22 Mar 14:13 collapse

In that case the “orchestrate the pieces” part is copyrightable if it reaches a minimum threshold of creativity but the pieces themselves are still not copyrightable because a human still didn’t make them??