Live data from Hacker News

AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

github.com

451–460 of 464 posts

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#451
post #421
post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can already generate surprisingly complex software on an LLM on a raspberry pi now, including live voice assistance, all offline. Peoples hardware can self write software pretty readily now. The cost of tokens is a race to zero.

That is not what i'm seeing. I've been coding intensively with claude code for the last 3 months: 200k lines of go, 1200+ commits, mostly using opus. I don't think i could have done this with a local LLM. Maybe on a M5 pro?

Qwen 3.5 122b is competitive with Opus 4.6, and runs at 35t/s on a Strix Halo. It is my daily driver.

Unlike Opus I can run abliterated models with censorship removed so it can be used for security research and reverse engineering and whatever I want with privacy, offline.

It makes any hosted models feel like a kids toy.

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#452
post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wording might be more or less lawyerly but the idea is fairly common, e.g. https://openinfra.org/legal/ai-policy (OpenStack).

This is very good! It captures the core idea that "As a contributor, you are responsible for the code you submit" that the other example doesn't cover. Perhaps a nit is that it's a little too OpenInfra policy specific. Is it fair to say it got to it's near final form mid 2025?

Yes, that's fair.

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason is that it is absolutely impossible to write any kind of program that is not a derivative of earlier programs. And that's why copyright has exceptions for humans. You're right copyright was the wrong tool for code but for the wrong reasons. It shouldn't be binary. And the law should protect all work, not just creative. Either workers would come to a mutual agreement how much each contributed or the court…

>> abusing the copyright laws and the patent laws have been the most significant blockers of technical progress during the last few decades > Can you give examples? This is a subject so vast that giving examples requires a book-length text. IIRC at least one or two books have actually been written about this, but I am too lazy to search now for their titles. I am more familiar with what happened in cryptography, wher…

It all boils down to some people thinking they should be able to use other people's work for free.

> patents

Patents, unlike copyright, are not automatic. Which indicates that the people who expended their limited lifetime to invent the algorithms explicitly did not want you using them, at least not unless you came to an agreement with them first.

---

re rewriting:

There's your real problem. Copyright should belong to the people doing the actual work, not owners/employers who perform no useful work.

If that was the case, the person who did the original work would have no reason to prevent you from using it, as long as he could also benefit from the fruits of your combined labor. For him, the work was already done, it would be extra reward. For you, it would be profitable as long as his reward was less than the cost of you doing it from scratch. You'd most likely meet somewhere in the middle.

Same situation when rewriting your own work.

As often happens, a system was put in place for good. Rich people found a way to exploit it. Now, instead of trying to fix the system, you're arguing to remove it entirely, not realizing you'll be worse off in the end. LLM want to replace all programmers by using their work against them. This is not for your benefit, it's for theirs.

As I often say, what should be protected isn't creativity or expression but work. People should benefit from their work and it should not be used against them. It should also not be possible for someone to benefit without doing useful work.

---

Would you work for a company which develops software to detect homosexuals using public cameras and eye tracking? What about a company discovering and selling Android exploits to governments? Does it matter which governments? What about a company which tracks employee movements and productivity to such a level they have to pee in bottles to meet quotas?

The world is full of these examples but at least you had the choice of not helping them. Now you don't.

The people who own them are some of the most anti-social people on the planet and you think they should be able to use our work as they wish...

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#454
post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's certainly possible. All that is required is for AIs to become more expensive than humans. Developing projects on a $100 Claude Code subscription is a lot of fun. I bet people would simply go back to hiring human developers if that subscription cost $10,000 instead.

Except you can pay $2500 once for a Strix Halo and have your own Claude Code hosted at home for free with unlimited tokens on 400w.

Well, I hope you're right. I want to be optimistic about the self-hosted LLMs future. Hope they keep distilling the frontier models until open weight models can match Opus one day. A self-hosted Opus would be amazing.

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#455
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being in the public domain is not a license; rather, it means the material is not copyrighted and no license is needed. Practically speaking, though, if a work is in the public domain, it might as well have an all-permissive non-copyleft free software license. Public domain material is compatible with the GNU GPL. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PublicDomain

Yes, if it is clearly labeled as such, than GPL/LGPL licenced works may be included in such products. However, this relationship cannot make such works GPL without violating copyright, and doesn't magically become yours to re-license isomorphic plagiarized code from LLM. For example, one may use NASA public domain photos as you wish, but cannot register copyright under another license you find convenient to sue peopl…

> this relationship cannot make such works GPL without violating copyright

By definition, for content in the public domain, there's no copyright to be violated and no rightsholder with any recognizable/enforceable claim to IP to bring a suit. There's no IP at all.

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can refuse to use AI personally, but why would you not help yourself when you can? … my dad is 86 and only after I signed him up to Claude could he write Arduino code without a phone call to me after 5 minutes of trying himself. So now, he’s spending 4+ hours at a time focused writing code and building circuits of things he only dreamt about creating for decades. Unless you’re doing something for the personal lov…

Nah. I'm only interested in the bits it doesn't know. Why would someone else's regurgitated whatever be what I wanted, why would that be help in any way?

Everything is a copy of a copy of a copy

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#457
post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, if it is clearly labeled as such, than GPL/LGPL licenced works may be included in such products. However, this relationship cannot make such works GPL without violating copyright, and doesn't magically become yours to re-license isomorphic plagiarized code from LLM. For example, one may use NASA public domain photos as you wish, but cannot register copyright under another license you find convenient to sue peopl…

> this relationship cannot make such works GPL without violating copyright By definition, for content in the public domain, there's no copyright to be violated and no rightsholder with any recognizable/enforceable claim to IP to bring a suit. There's no IP at all.

One can't license something they never owned to other users. GPL is fundamentally a contaminating license, and LLM output can't magically become GPL/LGPL.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20260414-the-monkey-sel...

https://www.peta.org/news/monkey-selfie-case-animal-rights-f...

Indeed, people also failed to give Monkeys the right to sue for copyright enforcement. Folks seem really keen on piracy "with extra steps" these days. =3

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#458
post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this relationship cannot make such works GPL without violating copyright By definition, for content in the public domain, there's no copyright to be violated and no rightsholder with any recognizable/enforceable claim to IP to bring a suit. There's no IP at all.

One can't license something they never owned to other users. GPL is fundamentally a contaminating license, and LLM output can't magically become GPL/LGPL. https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20260414-the-monkey-sel... https://www.peta.org/news/monkey-selfie-case-animal-rights-f... Indeed, people also failed to give Monkeys the right to sue for copyright enforcement. Folks seem really keen on piracy "with extra steps…

There's no such thing as piracy of the public domain. You're either hopelessly ill-suited to grapple with this topic or you're a troll, so I won't comment further.

If you're actually sincere in your beliefs, then take the money you regularly spend on hiring those specialized IP lawyers you mentioned and get one who will provide a second opinion and provide a detailed explanation of why what you're saying here is nonsense.

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#459
post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One can't license something they never owned to other users. GPL is fundamentally a contaminating license, and LLM output can't magically become GPL/LGPL. https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20260414-the-monkey-sel... https://www.peta.org/news/monkey-selfie-case-animal-rights-f... Indeed, people also failed to give Monkeys the right to sue for copyright enforcement. Folks seem really keen on piracy "with extra steps…

There's no such thing as piracy of the public domain. You're either hopelessly ill-suited to grapple with this topic or you're a troll, so I won't comment further. If you're actually sincere in your beliefs, then take the money you regularly spend on hiring those specialized IP lawyers you mentioned and get one who will provide a second opinion and provide a detailed explanation of why what you're saying here is nons…

You were provided with the context to educate yourself about what "uncopyrightable" means, and indeed most LLM output is >20% nonsense.

Data theft of service or piracy from the web and "AI" users content are used in the model training sets, and when codified the statistical saliency is significant if popular content is present.

For example, when an LLM does a vector search, there is a high probability of pirated content bleed-though and isomorphic plagiarism in the high dimensional vector space results. Thus, often when you coincidentally type in "name a cartoon mouse", there is a higher probability Disney "Micky Mouse" will pop out in the output rather than "Mighty Mouse". Note Trademarks never expire if the fees are paid, and Disney can still technically sue anyone that messes with their mouse.

LLM are useful for context search, but can't function properly without constantly stealing from actual humans. Thus, will often violate copyright, trademark, and patents. In a commercial context it is legally irrelevant how the output has misappropriated the IP.

This channel offers several simplified explanations of the work being done with models, and Anthropic posts detailed research papers on its website.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDdKiQNw80c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx4Tpsk_fnM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAcwtV_bFp4

I would recommend this channels "AI" project demo on the PDP-11:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUE3FSIk46g

Also, a well known case of "AI" output infringement leading to legal peril:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhgYMH6n004

One may believe whatever they like, and have a glorious day. =3

Post reply on HN