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

Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK

app.dealroom.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 397 posts

Re: Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK

#231

Post by andrekandre »

tokioyoyo wrote: post #148
dan_q wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me guess: AGI is 2-6 weeks away, software development is solved, and anyone who disagrees with your enlightened perspective is a backwards-looking luddite.

No. I’m asking in good faith. I was skeptical in 2023, but took the approach of using it at least once a week, with all latest models to see the evolution. It’s obvious that the industry is moving that way, and at this point it would be a career-suicide for seniors+ to not be able to drive AI to achieve their objectives . I’m not saying it’s good for everything, but we’ve gone very far in terms of capabilities in the…

your argument is basically: the industry is moving to it so we should get on board or be left behind

it would be more convincing if you had concrete examples of technical merit and quality/speed improvements that worked for you or your team that justify going all-in

Re: Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK

#232

Post by zmmmmm »

ethin wrote: post #170
henryfjordan wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The courts are 100% going to have to interpret what is "sufficient human control" at some point.

Sure, but I would be incredibly shocked if the courts overturned these conclusions. These kinds of determinations are within the remit of the USCO, so a court does not need to come out and say it if the USCO has already done so. Obviously, as I said it would be better if congress weighed in and solved this problem, given that the USCO is free to publish a new NOI to change it's practices/policies, but we all know tha…

But there are no conclusions. It literally says:

> Whether human contributions to AI-generated outputs are sufficient to constitute authorship must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis

It says a plain prompt is not enough but that is not the reality of real software development. People aren't one-shotting complex business apps. The vast majority of software development will trivially pass that bar and end up in the "requires case by case analysis".

Re: Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK

#233

Post by StatsAreFun »

From the page https://openjdk.org/legal/ai -

"6 Is it okay to continue using the spell-checking, grammar-checking, auto-completion, and refactoring features in my editor or IDE?

Yes, so long as they are not based on large language models or similar deep-learning systems."

Re: Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK

#234

Post by zmmmmm »

Some important context - it appears it applies to submissions from the community but possibly not to core developers:

> Contributions in the OpenJDK Community must not include content generated, in part or in full, by large language models

So this likely falls more into the category of the inability of the core maintainers to manage the voluminous submissions coming from community than some broad ban of use in AI to develop it at all.

Re: Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK

#236

Post by philipov »

shevy-java wrote: post #199
philipov wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter if the lawnmower is chopping off feat intentionally or not. If it's presenting a public hazard, it should be stopped. Even though the ocean couldn't care less it doesn't prevent us from building breakwalls. And Larry Ellison isn't unstoppable as the ocean.

This seems to make Larry more harmless. A lawnmower does not think. Larry thinks, so it seems to white-wash Larry here. It's more like that movie with Stephen King where the cars and other machines turn actively evil. Hilarious movie too, not great but hilarious.

Rather than harmless, what the lawnmower analogy achieves is to make him seem blameless. "How can you assign blame to a thing that's just doing what it's built to do without any intent?" It's important to push back against that. Intent isn't a necessary condition for something to be dangerous, and so it's not necessary to ask whether it is intentional or not. A rabid dog will be put down regardless of who is to blame for it.

Re: Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK

#237

Post by robocat »

sandeepkd wrote: post #156
robocat wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> penalty of $1.5B on Anthropic Settlement not penalty. Anthropic will have judged the benefits of the settlement, not just the headline cost. It could have been a strategic move by Anthropic: we can't know without information we don't have. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49014389 1.5B looks like ~2% of funding/income.

I understand the legal terminology is different, however at the same time I am not entirely sure if the optics change by calling it Settlement or Penalty. There is only one party paying money here and they are not getting any service after paying this money so its indeed a penalty for what they did before. Any article describing the details has both the key words, its a legal settlement where Anthropic is penalized.…

The legal team in the Bartz v. Anthropic case was a coalition of three law firms, funded on a contingency fee basis, which ended up earning them $187 million (12.5%).

Other copyright lawsuits against other major companies are happening.

If a similar lawsuit costs OpenAI more than 1.5B then perhaps Anthropic is better off in their competitive race?

> the people who came forward to sue are mostly in the category of book publishers/authors

Irrelevant. The financially savvy parties are the lawfirm L.L.P.s trying to win money for themselves.

Re: Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK

#238

Post by philipov »

anon73044 wrote: post #190
philipov wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter if the lawnmower is chopping off feat intentionally or not. If it's presenting a public hazard, it should be stopped. Even though the ocean couldn't care less it doesn't prevent us from building breakwalls. And Larry Ellison isn't unstoppable as the ocean.

you and what army are going to stop him?

If there were such an army, let's call it a union, would you join it?

Re: Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK

#239

Post by SR2Z »

criddell wrote: post #184
SR2Z wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, your claim is "LLM generated code is not copyrighted." His claim is "LLM generated code is eligible for copyright."

My understanding (belief) is that it's going to depend on how much human involvement is there. If you write a prompt and one-shot a problem and share the source code, that source code is probably not covered by copyright. If you substantially edit or modify the generated code you would own the copyright. It's like with a camera. If I set a camera and carefully aim it and somehow trigger the shutter then make adjustme…

> If you write a prompt and one-shot a problem and share the source code, that source code is probably not covered by copyright.

We will have to see about that! This is the kind of boundary that's still being figured out in court; it's going to depend on how hard you worked on the prompt. I highly doubt that even most slop was generated with a single half-ass prompt, and the bar is not as high as you might expect.

> If I stick a Flock camera on a pole somewhere and post the live output, there's been no meaningful human creative involvement in producing those images and so nobody can claim copyright on them.

It really depends on what pole, where, and why. In a parking lot in rural Wisconsin? Probably not. A recorded livestream of a political march? You likely have copyright.

I think that by virtue of the sheer amount of time spent using AI tools, it's pretty clear that these outputs have enough creative input to be copyrightable.

Re: Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK

#240

Post by tga_d »

Alive-in-2025 wrote: post #215
criddell wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding (belief) is that it's going to depend on how much human involvement is there. If you write a prompt and one-shot a problem and share the source code, that source code is probably not covered by copyright. If you substantially edit or modify the generated code you would own the copyright. It's like with a camera. If I set a camera and carefully aim it and somehow trigger the shutter then make adjustme…

I think if I as a human use an llm to do something technical that would qualify copyright, it should still qualify for copyright. How do you decide how much human is copyrightable. If I use a package that writes code or use a library for some piece of it, I could still copyright. I don't like this idea that llm code can't be owned by a human, copyrighted. It's just code. I think your last example with flock camera is…

You seem to have misunderstood an is/ought distinction. You may hold the (fairly extreme, as far as copyright goes) position that surveillance footage should be subject to copyright, but it's well established that it's not. Who owns the camera is irrelevant. At least in the US; I'm not aware of any jurisdictions that hold otherwise. This is why Wikipedia articles on world events in the past few decades are full of stills from surveillance cameras: it's one of the few sources of imagery of an event that are unambiguously legal to include, because unlike a photo or intentionally made video of something specific, it's not a creative work. It's also pretty firmly established that human authorship is required for something to be subject to copyright, and having an idea that lead to some particular expression is itself not sufficient; see, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...

(Not a lawyer, just a Wikipedia editor.)

Post reply on HN