41–50 of 409 posts
The post in question: https://openjdk.org/legal/ai It is 'OpenJDK Interim Policy on Generative AI' and their lawyers are writing the final version, according to this page. It sounds like a sensible action, given past scars around Java and copyright, plus this is from a big old corp. That said I personally don't expect that final proposal will end up any better.
> given past scars around Java and copyright How many of these were self-inflicted?
The post in question: https://openjdk.org/legal/ai It is 'OpenJDK Interim Policy on Generative AI' and their lawyers are writing the final version, according to this page. It sounds like a sensible action, given past scars around Java and copyright, plus this is from a big old corp. That said I personally don't expect that final proposal will end up any better.
> given past scars around Java and copyright How many of these were self-inflicted?
I kind of get their overall point, even if it is ironic that Oracle is all in on AI. They don’t want a ton of contributions to review that weren’t made with care, adding burden to, as they put it: “already limited time of human reviewers”. Especially for a project that runs to many major businesses, this could pose a massive risk.
I kind of get their overall point, even if it is ironic that Oracle is all in on AI. They don’t want a ton of contributions to review that weren’t made with care, adding burden to, as they put it: “already limited time of human reviewers”. Especially for a project that runs to many major businesses, this could pose a massive risk.
Selling it is one thing. Having to use it one's self is quite another.
I kind of get their overall point, even if it is ironic that Oracle is all in on AI. They don’t want a ton of contributions to review that weren’t made with care, adding burden to, as they put it: “already limited time of human reviewers”. Especially for a project that runs to many major businesses, this could pose a massive risk.
The same problems that bedevil AI-written PRs here bedevil AI-written PRs at my place of work.
I'm sure it'll get better eventually, maybe, but something something Pareto principle.
Policies like this will result in the death of the branded software. As we move forward it will be easier than ever to just maintain and keep your fork of software with the changes you want or need. No more approval, bureaucracy, or arguing. Just tell the AI agent want you want changed and you have it. This will be used for huge things too. Like maybe you want a specific fork of Java that only supports for each itera…
So contributions to OpenJDK have to be hand-written, while internally, Oracle uses AI generated code... I guess the logic is that employees who use AI generated code (theoretically) review their code better? The whole thing still seems a little strange.
No I'm sure they are just paranoid about license rights.
code is a liability, and they likely have more to lose than gain by allowing AI contribution.
Rules for thee, but not for me. well I don't expect better from tech companies now.