Glad to see the common-sense rule that only humans can be held accountable for code generated by AI agents.
[flagged]
Not insane at all. Just a very useful shortcut. Not everyone wants to move fast and break shit.
AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel
21–30 of 464 posts
Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the output is public domain it's fine as I understand it.
Makes sense to me. But so anybody can take Public Domain code and place it under GNU Public License (by dropping it into a Linux source-code file) ? Surely the person doing so would be responsible for doing so, but are they doing anything wrong?
> Surely the person doing so would be responsible for doing so, but are they doing anything wrong?
You're perfectly at liberty to relicense public domain code if you wish.
The only thing you can't do is enforce the new license against people who obtain the code independently - either from the same source you did, or from a different source that doesn't carry your license.
Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel
#23Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel
#24Fork the kernel!
Humans for humans!
Don't let skynet win!!!
Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
You take responsibility. That means if the AI messes up, you get punished. No pushing blame onto the stupid computer. If you're not comfortable with that, don't use the AI.
There’s no reasonable way for you to use AI generated code and guarantee it doesn’t infringe. The whole use it but if it behaves as expected, it’s your fault is a ridiculous stance.
If you think it's an unacceptable risk to use a tool you can't trust when your own head is on the line, you're right, and you shouldn't use it. You don't have to guarantee anything. You just have to accept punishment.
Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel
#26Basically the rules are that you can use AI, but you take full responsibility for your commits and code must satisfy the license. That's... refreshingly normal? Surely something most people acting in good faith can get behind.
But why should AI then be attributed if it is merely a tool that is used?
Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same as if a regular person did the same. They are responsible for it. If you're using AI, check the code doesn't violate licenses
How could you do that though? You can’t guarantee that there aren’t chunks of copied code that infringes.
But the responsible party is still the human who added the code. Not the tool that helped do so.
Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel
#28Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel
#29This does nothing to shield Linux from responsibility for infringing code.
This is essentially like a retail store saying the supplier is responsible for eliminating all traces of THC from their hemp when they know that isn’t a reasonable request to make.
It’s a foreseeable consequence. You don’t get to grant yourself immunity from liability like this.
Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the output is public domain it's fine as I understand it.
Makes sense to me. But so anybody can take Public Domain code and place it under GNU Public License (by dropping it into a Linux source-code file) ? Surely the person doing so would be responsible for doing so, but are they doing anything wrong?
Sqlite’s source code is public domain. Surely if you dropped the sqlite source code into Linux, it wouldn’t suddenly become GPL code? I’m not sure how it works