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

AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 464 posts

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#41

Post by 59nadir »

pixel_popping wrote: post #34
59nadir wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you don't want to deal with people who can't write their own code. If they can, the rule will do nothing to stop them from contributing. It'll only matter if they simply couldn't make their contribution without LLMs.

So tomorrow, if a model genuinely find a bunch of real vulnerabilities, you just would ignore them? that makes no sense.

An LLM finding problems in code is not the same at all as someone using it to contribute code they couldn't write or haven't written themselves to a project. A report stating "There is a bug/security issue here" is not itself something I have to maintain, it's something I can react to and write code to fix, then I have to maintain that code.

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#42

Post by aargh_aargh »

shevy-java wrote: post #27
sarchertech wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The practical concern of Linux developers regarding responsibility is not being able to ban the author, it's that the author should take ongoing care for his contribution.

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#43

Post by newsoftheday »

philipov wrote: post #14
newsoftheday wrote: post #10

> All code must be compatible with GPL-2.0-only How can you guarantee that will happen when AI has been trained a world full of multiple licenses and even closed source material without permission of the copyright owners...I confirmed that with several AI's just now.

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.

> That means if the AI messes up

I'm not talking about maintainability or reliability. I'm talking about legal culpability.

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#44

Post by martin-t »

panzi wrote: post #9
galaxyLogic wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then if AI output is not under GNU General Public License, how can it become so just because a Linux-developer adds it to the code-base?

If the output is public domain it's fine as I understand it.

This ruling is IMO/IANAL based on lawyers and judges not understanding how LLMs work internally, falling for the marketing campaign calling them "AI" and not understanding the full implications.

LLM-creation ("training") involves detecting/compressing patterns of the input. Inference generates statistically probable based on similarities of patterns to those found in the "training" input. Computers don't learn or have ideas, they always operate on representations, it's nothing more than any other mechanical transformation. It should not erase copyright any more than synonym substitution.

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#45

Post by KK7NIL »

martin-t wrote: post #18

This feels like the OSS community is giving up. LLMs are lossily-compressed models of code and other text (often mass-scraped despite explicit non-consent) which has licenses almost always requiring attribution and very often other conditions. Just a few weeks ago a SOTA model was shown to reproduce non-trivial amounts of licensed code[0]. The idea of intelligence being emergent from compression is nothing new[1]. Th…

> I strongly object to anthropomorphising text transformers (e.g. "Assisted-by").

I don't think this is anthropomorphising, especially considering they also include non-LLM tools in that "Assisted-by" section.

We're well past the Turing test now, whether these things are actually sentient or not is of no pragmatic importance if we can't distinguish their output from a sentient creature, especially when it comes to programming.

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#46

Post by SirHumphrey »

sarchertech wrote: post #29

This 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.

Quite a lot of companies use and release AI written code, are they all liable?

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#47

Post by martin-t »

tmp10423288442 wrote: post #38
martin-t wrote: post #18

This feels like the OSS community is giving up. LLMs are lossily-compressed models of code and other text (often mass-scraped despite explicit non-consent) which has licenses almost always requiring attribution and very often other conditions. Just a few weeks ago a SOTA model was shown to reproduce non-trivial amounts of licensed code[0]. The idea of intelligence being emergent from compression is nothing new[1]. Th…

On https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47356000 , it looks like the user there was intentionally asking about the implementation of the Python chardet library before asking it to write code, right? Not surprising the AI would download the library to investigate it by default, or look for any installed copies of `chardet` on the local machine.

The comment says "Opus 4.6 without tool use or web access"

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#48

Post by sarchertech »

SirHumphrey wrote: post #46
sarchertech wrote: post #29

This 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.

Quite a lot of companies use and release AI written code, are they all liable?

1. Almost definitely if discovered

2. Infringement in closed source code isn’t as likely to be discovered

3. OpenAI and Anthropic enterprise agreements agree to indemnify (pay for damages essentially) companies for copyright issues.

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#49

Post by Chance-Device »

sarchertech wrote: post #33
shevy-java wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the responsible party is still the human who added the code. Not the tool that helped do so.

In a court case the responsibility party very well could be the Linux foundation because this is a foreseeable consequence of allowing AI contributions. There’s no reasonable way for a human to make such a guarantee while using AI generated code.

It’s not about the mechanism: responsibility is a social construct, it works the way people say that it works. If we all agree that a human can agree to bear the responsibility for AI outputs, and face any consequences resulting from those outputs, then that’s the whole shebang.

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#50

Post by plmpsu »

shevy-java wrote: post #26
qsort wrote: post #5

Basically 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?

it makes sense to keep track of what model wrote what code to look for patterns, behaviors, etc.
Post reply on HN