The 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.
That guy is stupid, the part of human nature containing dishonesty also houses "following the path of least resistance", which means that these people will simply contribute to another leading compiler without these rules.
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?
I had early chatGPT spit my own erlang code back at me WITH my comments.
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.
Already happened. My AI coded C compiler already bypassed gcc in less failures, compiles 10x faster, and with their new policy they'll fall far behind.
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?
This doesn't really happen by accident, especially where it's significant enough to constitute copyright infringement. And to my knowledge, there hasn't been a single lawsuit over this in the entire history of LLM-assisted coding.
For until the end of the article I was thinking GCC as in Gulf Cooperation Council. No idea why, but I was surprised this being about the gcc compiler and AI rules.
The GCC is an OSS project, after all.
I know GCC, but I was just recently at a GCC Conference about tech in the middle east. That's where my confusion comes from and I couldn't think of the compiler at first. Made me confused on what's going on in the middle east, until I figured it's about the GCC project.
It's extremely disturbing to see literally all foundational projects succumbing to the slop-monster. It's only a matter of time now until the critical mass of hard to detect bugs accumulate in the project, making gcc completely unusable for any practical purpose.
What's worse - those will be subtle bugs The kind you get from having a defective RAM chip, somewhere in the upper addresses.
And if we can't trust the compiler, we can't trust anything compiled with it.
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...
At least AI polarization seems to cut across the tired old red/blue divide (in the US anyway). So it may produce some interesting coalitions.
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?
There is concern, but the more I think about it, the less convinced I am. LLMs might produce a snippet, but copyright requires more than that. Last I checked (I'm not a lawyer, this was far enough back that the law has had major changes, and different countries have different laws! - read this with plenty of salt) if you start with copyright work and replace all but 10% that final amount just disappears since there isn't enough original to claim copyright anymore. You can never claim copyright over 'printf("Hello World");' - it is too generic. Most of what I've seen an LLM produce is likewise generic enough that even if it is a copy, it wouldn't be a copyrightable snippet.