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

151–160 of 464 posts

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#151

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

paradoxyl wrote: post #143
Sharlin wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's obvious that a computer program cannot have copyright because computer programs are not persons in any currently existing jurisdiction. Whether a person can claim copyright of the output of a computer program is generally understood as depending on whether there was sufficient creative effort from said person, and it doesn't really matter whether the program is Photoshop or ChatGPT.

Just thinking out loud... why can't an algorithm be an artificial person in the legal sense that a corporation is? Why not legally incorporate the AI as a corporation so it can operate in the real world: have accounts, create and hold copyrights...

Corporations are required to have human directors with full operational authority over the corporation's actions. This allows a court to summon them and compel them to do or not do things in the physical world. There's no reason a corporation can't choose to have an AI operate their accounts, but this won't affect the copyright status, and if the directors try to claim they can't override the AI's control of the accounts they'll find themselves in jail for contempt the first time the corporation faces a lawsuit.

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#155

Post by bsimpson »

ninjagoo wrote: post #79

> Signed-Off ... > The human submitter is responsible for: > Reviewing all AI-generated code > Ensuring compliance with licensing requirements > Adding their own Signed-off-by tag to certify the DCO > Taking full responsibility for the contribution > Attribution: ... Contributions should include an Assisted-by tag in the following format: Responsibility assigned to where it should lie. Expected no less from Torvalds,…

Signed-off-by is already a custom/formality that is surely cargo-culted by many first-time/infrequent contributors. It has an air of "the plans were on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.'" There's no way to assert that every contributor has read a random document declaring what that line means in kernel parlance.

I recently made a kernel contribution. Another contributor took issue with my patch and used it as the impetus for a larger refactor. The refactor was primarily done by a third contributor, but the original objector was strangely insistent on getting the "author" credit. They added our names at the bottom in "Co-developed-by" and "Signed-off-by" tags. The final submission included bits I hadn't seen before. I would have polished it more if I had.

I'm not raising a stink about it because I want the feature to land - it's the whole reason I submitted the first patch. And since it's a refactor of a patch I initially submitted (and "Signed-off-by,") you can make the argument that I signed off on the parts of my code that were incorporated.

But so far as I can tell, there's nothing keeping you from adding "Co-developed-by" and "Signed-off-by Jim-Bob Someguy" to the bottom of your submission. Maybe a lawyer would eventually be mad at you if Jim-Bob said he didn't sign off.

There's no magic pixie dust that gives those incantations legal standing, and nothing that keeps LLMs from adding them unless the LLMs internalize the new AI guidance.

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#156

Post by Joel_Mckay »

themafia wrote: post #82

> All contributions must comply with the kernel's licensing requirements: I just don't think that's realistically achievable. Unless the models themselves can introspect on the code and detect any potential license violations. If you get hit with a copyright violation in this scheme I'd be afraid that they're going to hammer you for negligence of this obvious issue.

US legal consensus has set the precedent that "AI" output can't be copyrighted. Thus, technically no one can really own or re-license prompt output.

Re-licensing public domain uncopyrightable work as GPL/LGPL is almost certainly a copyright violation, and no different than people violating GPL/LGPL in commercial works.

Linus is 100% wrong on this choice, and has introduced a serious liability into the foundation upstream code. =3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder%27s_syndrome

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6WHBO_Qc-Q

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#158

Post by brcmthrowaway »

ninjagoo wrote: post #111
_blaise_ wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linus is the original vibe coder. He barks orders at cadre of human contributor agents and subsystem maintainer agents until the code looks the way he likes.

> Linus is the original vibe coder. LoL. Jesting aside, OpenHub lists Linus Torvalds as having made 46,338 commits. 45,178 for Linux, 1,118 for Git. His most recent commit was 17 days ago. [1] That is a far cry from a vibe-coder, no? :-) Bit unfair to call his leadership vibe-coding, methinks. [1] https://openhub.net/accounts/9897

Where does gkh come in this list

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#159

Post by Paracompact »

jeremyjh wrote: post #130
pixel_popping wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still think it's insane, why would you care about the "origin" of the code as long as there is a human accountable (that you can ban anyway)?

Because they aren’t accountable - after it is merged only I am. And why would I want to go back and forth with an LLM through PR comments when I could just talk to the agent myself in real time? Anytime I want to work through a pile of slop I can ask for one, but I don’t work that way. I work with the agent to create plans first and refine them, and the author of a PR who couldn’t do that adds nothing.

> I work with the agent to create plans first and refine them, and the author of a PR who couldn’t do that adds nothing.

As someone who has been using AI extensively lately, this is my preferred way of doing serious projects with them:

Let them create the plan, help them refine it, let them rip; then scrutinize their diffs, fight back on the parts I don't like or don't trust; rinse and repeat until commit.

Yet I assume this would still be unacceptable to most anti-AI projects, because 90%+ of the committed code was "written by the AI."

> why would I want to go back and forth with an LLM through PR comments when I could just talk to the agent myself in real time?

Presumably for the same reason you go back and forth with humans through PR comments even when you could just code it yourself in real time. That reason being, the individual on the other end of the PR should be saving you time. It's still hard work contributing quality MRs, even with AI.

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#160

Post by kam »

Joel_Mckay wrote: post #156
themafia wrote: post #82

> All contributions must comply with the kernel's licensing requirements: I just don't think that's realistically achievable. Unless the models themselves can introspect on the code and detect any potential license violations. If you get hit with a copyright violation in this scheme I'd be afraid that they're going to hammer you for negligence of this obvious issue.

US legal consensus has set the precedent that "AI" output can't be copyrighted. Thus, technically no one can really own or re-license prompt output. Re-licensing public domain uncopyrightable work as GPL/LGPL is almost certainly a copyright violation, and no different than people violating GPL/LGPL in commercial works. Linus is 100% wrong on this choice, and has introduced a serious liability into the foundation upst…

> Being in the public domain is not a license; rather, it means the material is not copyrighted and no license is needed. Practically speaking, though, if a work is in the public domain, it might as well have an all-permissive non-copyleft free software license. Public domain material is compatible with the GNU GPL.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PublicDomain

Post reply on HN