Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 482 posts

Re: AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions

#401

Post by postexitus »

rowanG077 wrote: post #215
bsder wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Courts (at least in the US) have already ruled that use of ingested data for training is transformative. If you have code that happens to be identical to some else's code or implements someone's proprietary algorithm, you're going to lose in court even if you claim an "AI" gave it to you. AI is training on private Github repos and coughing them up. I've had it regurgitate a very well written piece of code to do a p…

That seems a real stretch. GPT 5 just invented new math for reference. What you are saying would be equivalent to saying that this math was obviously in some paper that mathematician did not know about. Maybe true, but it's a far reach.

It invented "new math" as much as I invented "new food" when I was cooking yesterday. It did a series of quite complicated calculations that would take a well trained human several hours or even days to do - still impressive, but no it's not new maths.

Re: AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions

#402

Post by jeremyjh »

rane wrote: post #362
jeremyjh wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP is not blaming the AI - did you read the post? AI does enable shitty humans to open PRs with code they have no comprehension of, wasting precious time donated by a skilled maintainer. That is a new thing that wasn’t possible without AI.

Using AI to generate code in a PR does not necessarily mean however that the user has not taken time to understand the changes and is not willing to learn. There are AI users who generate whole files without understanding the contents, and then there are AI users who generate the exact same files but have known in advance what they want, and merely use AI as a tool to save typing. The intention here seems to be to fi…

Sorry, I can't see how your comment is a reply to my comment. I said AI enables shitty humans to do this. I didn't say everyone using AI is a shitty human or whatever it is you took away from that.

Re: AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions

#403

Post by strogonoff »

withinboredom wrote: post #384
0points wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an whole genre of musicians focusing only on creating royalty free covers of popular songs so the music can be used in suggestive ways while avoiding royalties. It's not art. It's parasitism of art.

There's several sides of music copyright: 1. The lyrics 2. The composition 3. The recording These can all be owned by different people or the same person. The "royalty free covers" you mention are people abusing the rights of one of those. They're not avoiding royalties, they just havn't been caught yet.

I believe performance of a cover still results in relevant royalties paid to the original songwriter, just sans the performance fee, which does not strike me as a terrible ripoff (after all, a cover did take effort to arrange and perform).

Re: AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions

#404

Post by Forgeties79 »

furyofantares wrote: post #309
Forgeties79 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Ok” I generally associate with being adequate but could obviously be better. “Mediocre” is just inadequate.

Some synonyms for mediocre: decent, middling, ordinary, so-so. It can mean inadequate, but it can also mean adequate.

I’m just talking about how I view/use it.

Re: AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions

#405

Post by ineedasername »

ekianjo wrote: post #331
ineedasername wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wh…

> Society, in general, supports the idea that writers, artists, film makers, coders, etc Coders don't get paid every single time their code runs. Why bundle different rights together?

That’s a matter of contract and licensing, not the limits of copyright law.

Re: AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions

#406

Post by aeon_ai »

eru wrote: post #382
raggi wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US you can not generate copyrightable IP without substantial human contribution to the process. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...

Eh, they figured out how to copyright photographs, where the human only provides a few bits (setting up the scene, deciding when to pull the trigger etc); so stretching a few bits of human input to cover the whole output of an AI should also be doable with sufficiently well paid lawyers.

It's already been done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_artificial_intellig...

Re: AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions

#407

Post by ineedasername »

threecheese wrote: post #292
shkkmo wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Courts (at least in the US) have already ruled that use of ingested data for training is transformative Yes, the training of the model itself is (or should be) a transformative act so you can train a model on whatever you have legal access to view. However, that doesn't mean that the output of the model is automatically not infringing. If the model is prompted to create a copy of some copyrighted work, that is (or…

The fact that GitHub’s Copilot has an enterprise feature that matches model output against code having certain licenses - in order to prevent you from using it, with a notification - suggests the model outputs are at least potentially infringing. If MS were compelled to reveal how these completions are generated, there’s at least a possibility that they directly use public repositories to source text chunks that thei…

> suggests the model outputs are at least potentially infringing.

The only thing it suggests is that they recognize that a subset of users worry about it. Whether or not GitHub worries about it any further isn’t suggested.

Don’t think about it from an actual “rights” perspective. Think about the entire copyright issue as a “too big to fail” issue.

Re: AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions

#408

Post by aleph_minus_one »

aspenmayer wrote: post #336
ekianjo wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Society, in general, supports the idea that writers, artists, film makers, coders, etc Coders don't get paid every single time their code runs. Why bundle different rights together?

> Coders don't get paid every single time their code runs. They do if they code the API correctly. > Why bundle different rights together? Why are mineral rights sold separately to most land deeds?

> Why are mineral rights sold separately to most land deeds?

Because the population does not rebel against the politicians that made these laws.

Re: AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions

#409

Post by aleph_minus_one »

ants_everywhere wrote: post #258
eru wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think using AI at all is forbidden, he just doesn't want AI to do the whole PR?

The requirement is explicitly > If you are using *any kind of AI assistance* to contribute to Ghostty, it must be disclosed in the pull request. This is sufficiently confusing that someone is asking if this applies to tab completion. They commit actually says > trivial tab-completion doesn't need to be disclosed, so long as it is limited to single keywords or short phrases. So if you take this literally you're going…

> Junior developers need to learn how to code with AI because that's what coding is now.

Rather: this is what coding is now in some Silicon Valley bubbles.

Re: AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions

#410

Post by aleph_minus_one »

ants_everywhere wrote: post #222
andruby wrote: post #108

> I try to assist inexperienced contributors and coach them to the finish line, because getting a PR accepted is an achievement to be proud of I really appreciate this point from mitchellh. Giving thoughtful constructive feedback to help a junior developer improve is a gift. Yet it would be a waste of time if the PR submitter is just going to pass it to an AI without learning from it.

Junior developers are entering a workforce where they will never not be using AI

> Junior developers are entering a workforce where they will never not be using AI

This remark seems very US-centric to me. In my observation, many people are much more skeptical concerning whether AI is actually useful beyond some gimmicky applications.

Post reply on HN