221–230 of 454 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's far-fetched that the GNU project is authentically concerned about software licensing?
No, it's far-fetched to believe GCC would get sued for incorporating LLM-generated code.
Refusing security patches and bug fixes because an engineer chose to use an auto-complete engine you do not like is categorically negligent. Might as well mandate everyone use a special editor too. Probably emacs. I know a kernel developer sitting on a bunch of AI generated 0day patches for Zig they have not submitted since it is against Zig policy and they do not want to deal with the drama. That is what these polic…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They still allow LLM-generated code for tests, LLM-assisted debugging, bug discovery and code reviews. It doesn't seem so.
At the same time, they would be somewhat forced to concede those use cases if they wanted to stick to the copyright story. Maybe you're right but I remain skeptical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like the top reply: > "The true purpose of AI is to allow wealth to access skill without allowing skill to access wealth."
[flagged]
Makes sense. The G in GCC is for GNU right, GNU as in Stallman-style Free Software. The GPL operates based on copyright licenses. If LLM output can not be copyrightable (as the courts seem to assert), then it can not be a significant part of Free Software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Can't speak for others but I'm just tired of hearing far-fetched copyright concerns that mask the real motivation (ideological opposition to LLMs).
https://llvm.org/docs/AIToolPolicy.html
LLMs are just tools. Humans are always accountable and in the end whatever tool is used the human is the one powering on the computer. Banning LLM is like banning compilers themselves or linters with auto fix capability, or anything else that appends new characters to text files without humans pressing keyboard buttons.
Hence, nonsense.
Also:
https://forge.sourceware.org/redi/gcc-wwwdocs/src/commit/4d0...
“ The commit message for any contribution of LLM-generated content must include an “Assisted-by:” tag.”
You serious?!
Maybe projects that announce such anti-“ai” policies seek reducing slop and spam. But come on. Policy is a text doc. The real deal is enforcing it. Ban idiots, not humans using whatever tools to get things done.
Why do the AI bros even care? Surely you can just make a better gcc with a prompt right, why care about one project disallowing your Thoughtful Contributions?
There was someone claiming they had already AI generated a better GCC that was 10x as fast. A bold claim, but they didn't provide evidence so who knows.
I would bet my life savings that they're either lying or delusional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's far-fetched that the GNU project is authentically concerned about software licensing?
No, it's far-fetched to believe GCC would get sued for incorporating LLM-generated code.