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

231–240 of 464 posts

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#231

Post by lukeify »

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.

An open-source project receiving open-source contributions from (often anonymous) volunteers is not even close to analogous to a storefront selling products with a consumer guarantee they are backing on the basis of their supply chain.

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#233

Post by abc123abc123 »

lrvick wrote: post #184
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.

It cannot be understated how religiously opposed many in the Linux community are to even a single AI assisted commit landing in the kernel no matter how well reviewed. Plenty see Torvalds as a traitor for this policy and will never contribute again if any clearly labeled AI generated code is actually allowed to merge.

Doesn't matter. Linux today is a toy of corporations and stopped being community oriented a long time ago. Community orientation I think these days only exists among the BSD and some fringe linux distributions.

The linux foundation itself, is just one big, woke, leftist mess, with CV-stuffers from corporations in every significant position.

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#234

Post by dwedge »

lrvick wrote: post #224
adrianN wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The corporate moat is the army of lawyers they have. It doesn’t matter whether they win or not if you can’t afford endless litigation. Is the same for patents.

The music industry has an army of lawyers too, and it did not make a damn bit of difference once bittorrent was popularized. IP law means nothing once tens of millions of people are openly violating it. The software industry is about to learn this lesson too.

So is music free now? The record industry doesn't exist anymore, isn't ridiculously profitable? Artists are finally earning a fair share?

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#235

Post by Lapel2742 »

oytis wrote: post #232

How is one supposed to ensure license compliance while using LLMs which do not (and cannot) attribute sources having contributed to a specific response?

> How one is supposed to ensure license compliance while using LLMs which do not (and cannot) attribute sources having contributed to a specific response?

Additionally there seems to be a general problem with LLM output and copyright[1]. At least in Germany. LLM output cannot be copyrighted and the whole legal field seems under-explored.

> This immediately raises the question of who is the author of this work and who owns the rights to it. Various solutions are possible here. It could be the user of the AI alone, or it could be a joint work between the user and the AI programmer. This question will certainly keep copyright experts in the various legal systems busy for some time to come.

It seems that in the long run the kernel license might become unenforceable if LLM output is used?!

[1] https://kpmg-law.de/en/ai-and-copyright-what-is-permitted-wh...

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#236

Post by dwedge »

cinntaile wrote: post #203
goatlover wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they against change in general, or certain kinds of change? Remember when social media was seen as near universal good kind of progress? Not so much now.

Social media has never been seen as a universal positive force? It's the same with AI. It has good and bad aspects as does any technology that has an impact on this scale, AI will arguably have a much bigger impact imo. People are generally against change that forces them to change the way they used to do things. I'm sure most will have their reasons why they are against this particular change, but I don't think it w…

It reminds me of something I read on mastodon: "genie doesn't go back in the bottle say AI promoters while the industry spends a trillion dollars a year to try to keep the genie out of the bottle"

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#237

Post by dwedge »

contraposit wrote: post #202
goatlover wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they against change in general, or certain kinds of change? Remember when social media was seen as near universal good kind of progress? Not so much now.

This is like blaming a knife as being a killer weapon. Social media is inherently good if owners of the platforms allow for good interactions to take place. But given the mismatch between incentives alignment, we don't have nice things.

Social media is good if owners allow for good is an example of the logical fallacy "begging the question"

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#238

Post by Marha01 »

adrianN wrote: post #218
lrvick wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile I expect that intellectual property protections for software are completely unenforceable and effectively useless now. If something does not exist as MIT, an LLM will create it. The playing field is level now, and corpo moats no longer exist. I happily take that trade.

The corporate moat is the army of lawyers they have. It doesn’t matter whether they win or not if you can’t afford endless litigation. Is the same for patents.

Funny, their army of lawyers seems incapable of stopping me from easily downloading pirated software or coding an open alternative to their closed-source software with AI if I wanted to..

You cannot keep a purely legally-enforced moat in the face of advancing technology.

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#239

Post by gnz11 »

cinntaile wrote: post #203
goatlover wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they against change in general, or certain kinds of change? Remember when social media was seen as near universal good kind of progress? Not so much now.

Social media has never been seen as a universal positive force? It's the same with AI. It has good and bad aspects as does any technology that has an impact on this scale, AI will arguably have a much bigger impact imo. People are generally against change that forces them to change the way they used to do things. I'm sure most will have their reasons why they are against this particular change, but I don't think it w…

Adapting implies you are still a part of the environment though. AI is on a trajectory to replace you and take you out of the environment.

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#240

Post by Marha01 »

dwedge wrote: post #234
lrvick wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The music industry has an army of lawyers too, and it did not make a damn bit of difference once bittorrent was popularized. IP law means nothing once tens of millions of people are openly violating it. The software industry is about to learn this lesson too.

So is music free now? The record industry doesn't exist anymore, isn't ridiculously profitable? Artists are finally earning a fair share?

> So is music free now?

Uhm... yes? The cost of downloading pirated music is essentially zero. The only reason why people use services like Spotify is because it's extremely cheap while being a bit more convenient. But jack up the price and the masses will move to sail the sea again.

Post reply on HN