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

GCC steering committee announces AI policy

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 453 posts

Re: GCC steering committee announces AI policy

#21

Post by randusername »

fractorial wrote: post #7
unprovable wrote: post #2

The comments are worth it... the full spectrum of personalities and the hottest of takes. 10/10, would recommend to a bored friend.

> Do anti-LLM types expect to be vindicated in an orgy of copyright lawsuits that resets the industry back to 2022? What do people pushing expect to accomplish? You weren’t kidding, huh.

The GCC stance seems reasonable to me, where do we think the rage is coming from in comments like this?

Off the cuff, I would be surprised if the GNU project embraced AI, so I'm confused that people think so strongly otherwise.

Re: GCC steering committee announces AI policy

#22

Post by olalonde »

fractorial wrote: post #7
unprovable wrote: post #2

The comments are worth it... the full spectrum of personalities and the hottest of takes. 10/10, would recommend to a bored friend.

> Do anti-LLM types expect to be vindicated in an orgy of copyright lawsuits that resets the industry back to 2022? What do people pushing expect to accomplish? You weren’t kidding, huh.

He's correct though. You would need 3 extremely low probability events to all occur simultaneously for the concern to actually manifest.

1) Courts reverse their previous decisions and declare LLM generated code as belonging to LLM labs.

2) LLM labs decide to assert their copyright and sue open source projects.

3) They are able to prove that the code was generated by an LLM and not just any LLM but their LLM.

Re: GCC steering committee announces AI policy

#24

Post by Jedd »

I don't use gcc directly - not in a long while - but almost everything I rely on uses it, and it's hugely encouraging to have the stewards of this project contemplate, and then determine to have this policy.

Meanwhile, I don't know who quotemstr is, but they don't sound sane in any of the exchanges in this thread.

Re: GCC steering committee announces AI policy

#25

Post by lumost »

javier_e06 wrote: post #17

The 3 big ones, Linux, GCC and Git require a human to vouch/explain the work in question. Once the 3 big ones start using LLM to review/accept the work for speed reliability sake, who knows what is going to happen.

If you are asking a human to review something, it should have been verified/reviewed by a human first.

I have no interest reading someone else’s ai output that has not been verified.

Re: GCC steering committee announces AI policy

#27

Post by Retr0id »

olalonde wrote: post #22
fractorial wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do anti-LLM types expect to be vindicated in an orgy of copyright lawsuits that resets the industry back to 2022? What do people pushing expect to accomplish? You weren’t kidding, huh.

He's correct though. You would need 3 extremely low probability events to all occur simultaneously for the concern to actually manifest. 1) Courts reverse their previous decisions and declare LLM generated code as belonging to LLM labs. 2) LLM labs decide to assert their copyright and sue open source projects. 3) They are able to prove that the code was generated by an LLM and not just any LLM but their LLM.

Isn't there also a concern that an LLM may reproduce copyrighted code verbatim (or close enough), and the original author asserts their copyright?

Re: GCC steering committee announces AI policy

#28

Post by tao_oat »

prologic wrote: post #23

Do we have any idea what "legally significant" or "legally insignificant" means here?

> It uses the definition of "legally significant" from the GNU Project maintainer guidelines, which holds that the threshold is ""around 15 lines of code and/or text"" to qualify as significant for copyright purposes.

From the page itself, linking to https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Legally-Sign....

Re: GCC steering committee announces AI policy

#29

Post by prologic »

prologic wrote: post #23

Do we have any idea what "legally significant" or "legally insignificant" means here?

Nevermind:

It uses the definition of "legally significant" from the GNU Project maintainer guidelines, which holds that the threshold is "around 15 lines of code and/or text" to qualify as significant for copyright purposes.

Re: GCC steering committee announces AI policy

#30

Post by kmlx »

datakan wrote: post #20
unprovable wrote: post #2

The comments are worth it... the full spectrum of personalities and the hottest of takes. 10/10, would recommend to a bored friend.

AI psychosis seems to be on all sides of the debate. We've truly lost our moderate speech and the ability to discuss.

i agree but it’s not due to or about AI but more about polarisation of society in general: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/psychologylse/2023/06/08/building-br...
Post reply on HN