[dead]
GCC steering committee announces AI policy
31–40 of 453 posts
Re: GCC steering committee announces AI policy
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
+1, I also thought this was the actual concern.
Re: GCC steering committee announces AI policy
#33Do we have any idea what "legally significant" or "legally insignificant" means here?
I'm trying to be charitable here but a summary is literally the third sentence of the post, with the full definition linked:
>> 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. GCC maintainers may, however, choose to accept legally significant test cases that are generated by an LLM.
Does anyone read more than the headline before jumping to the comments anymore?
Re: GCC steering committee announces AI policy
#34The comments are worth it... the full spectrum of personalities and the hottest of takes. 10/10, would recommend to a bored friend.
More and more of these AI comment threads are starting to read like messages in The Talos Principal.
Re: GCC steering committee announces AI policy
#35The comments are worth it... the full spectrum of personalities and the hottest of takes. 10/10, would recommend to a bored friend.
Currently the top one has a nice kind of supervillain flair to it: > Denying it is denying human nature, Mr. Bond, and the gods tend to punish the hubris of denying nature.
I believe LWN comments are chronological, so the top one will remain the top one.
Re: GCC steering committee announces AI policy
#36I wonder how they plan to detect it something is LLM generated. I think what this leads to is people just working hard to make their outputs appear human generated.
Re: GCC steering committee announces AI policy
#37The 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.
Agreedm Modifying Hitchen's Maxim - "That which can be asserted without thought and be dismissed without thought".
Or to put it another way, expecting me to review code you didn't and had an LLM generate is pushing the onus onto me and that's not happening.
Re: GCC steering committee announces AI policy
#38This is a pretty good middle ground, I think. You can't prevent LLM usage and there's significant downsides to doing so universally, so restricting contributions to things that a human needs to demonstrably understand circumvents a lot of problems.
You can use an LLM and demonstrably understand the code it produces.
I find myself often trying to understand the madness of some of the code an LLM produces. Does that count? You're absolutely right! I made a mistake, and I'm sorry.. Then I end up questioning myself if it wouldn't have been easier to just do it myself. To be fair though, it's not limited to LLMs, I've felt that way other people's code too.
Jokes aside, there's a difference to understanding the code and understanding the reasoning that is behind the code, I feel that LLMs still struggle enormously with the later. They start writing, and sometimes realise halfway through that they can't backtrack and just keep writing rubbish. You can argue about spinning loops and iterative processes, as long as they are actually able to converge.
Re: GCC steering committee announces AI policy
#39The 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.
You are absolutely right.
Re: GCC steering committee announces AI policy
#40The 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.
Is it "anti-LLM" or is it anti "here's some code I don't understand that a machine generated for me kthxbye"?
Code is not just code, it's also liability and trust.