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

Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 427 posts

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#51

Post by pavon »

wyldfire wrote: post #13

I understand where this comes from but I think it's a mistake. I agree it would be nice if there were "well settled law" regarding AI and copyright, probably relatively few rulings and next to zero legislation on which to base their feelings. In addition to a policy to reject contributions from AI, I think it may make sense to point out places where AI generated content can be used. For example - how much of QEMU pro…

This isn't like some other legal questions that go decades before being answered in court. There are dozens of cases working through the courts today that will shed light on some aspects of the copyright questions within a few years. QEMU has made great progress over the last 22 years without the aid of AI, waiting a few more years isn't going to hurt them.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#52

Post by b00ty4breakfast »

SchemaLoad wrote: post #6
Havoc wrote: post #4

I wonder whether the motivation is really legal? I get the sense that some projects are just sick of reviewing crap AI submissions

This could honestly break open source, with how quickly you can generate bullshit, and how long it takes to review and reject it. I can imagine more projects going the way of Android where you can download the source, but realistically you can't contribute as a random outsider.

I have an online acquaintance that maintains a very small and not widely used open-source project and the amount of (what we assume to be) automated AI submissions* they have to wade through is kinda wild given the very small number of contributors and users the thing has. It's gotta be clogging up these big projects like a DDoS attack.

*"Automated" as in bots and "AI submissions" as in ai-generated code

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#53

Post by esjeon »

Havoc wrote: post #4

I wonder whether the motivation is really legal? I get the sense that some projects are just sick of reviewing crap AI submissions

Possibly, but QEMU is such a critical piece software in our industry. Its application stretches from one end to the other - desktop VM, cloud/remote instance, build server, security sandbox, cross-platform environment, etc. Even a small legal risk can hurt the industry pretty badly.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#54

Post by candiddevmike »

deadbabe wrote: post #49
benlivengood wrote: post #35

Open source and libre/free software are particularly vulnerable to a future where AI-generated code is ruled to be either infringing or public domain. In the former case, disentangling AI-edits from human edits could tie a project up in legal proceedings for years and projects don't have any funding to fight a copyright suit. Specifically, code that is AI-generated and subsequently modified or incorporated in the res…

If a software is truly wide open source in the sense of “do whatever the fuck you want with this code, we don’t care”, then it has nothing to fear from AI.

Won't apply to closed source, not public code, which the GPL (QEMU uses) is quite good at ensuring becomes open source...

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#55

Post by kgwxd »

deadbabe wrote: post #49
benlivengood wrote: post #35

Open source and libre/free software are particularly vulnerable to a future where AI-generated code is ruled to be either infringing or public domain. In the former case, disentangling AI-edits from human edits could tie a project up in legal proceedings for years and projects don't have any funding to fight a copyright suit. Specifically, code that is AI-generated and subsequently modified or incorporated in the res…

If a software is truly wide open source in the sense of “do whatever the fuck you want with this code, we don’t care”, then it has nothing to fear from AI.

Can't release someone else's proprietary source under a "do whatever the fuck you want" license and actually do whatever the fuck you want, without getting sued.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#56

Post by candiddevmike »

andy99 wrote: post #41
compton93 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to review code the author doesn't understand This really bothers me. I've had people ask me to do some task except they get AI to provide instructions on how to do the task and send me the instructions, rather than saying "Hey can you please do X". It's insulting.

Had someone higher up ask about something in my area of expertise. I said I didn't think is was possible, he followed up with a chatGPT conversation he had where it "gave him some ideas that we could use as an approach", as if that was some useful insight. This is the same people that think that "learning to code" is a translation issue they don't have time for as opposed to experience they don't have.

Imagine a boring dystopia where everyone is given hallucinated tasks from LLMs that may in some crazy way be feasible but aren't, and you can't argue that they're impossible without being fired since leadership lacks critical thinking.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#57

Post by candiddevmike »

mattl wrote: post #47

I'm interested to see how this plays out. I'd like a similar policy for my projects, but also a similar policy/T&C that prohibits the crawling of the content too.

Only way to prohibit crawling is to go back to invite only, probably self-hosted repositories. These companies have no shame, your T&Cs won't mean anything to them and you have no way of proving they violated them without some kind of discovery into their training data.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#58

Post by acedTrex »

Oh hey, the thing I predicted in my blog titled "yes i will judge you for using AI" happened lol

Basically I think open source has traditionally HEAVILY relied on hidden competency markers to judge the quality of incoming contributions. LLMs throw that entire concept on its head by presenting code that has competent markers but none of the backing experience. It is a very very jarring experience for experienced individuals.

I suspect that virtual or in person meetings and other forms of social proof independent of the actual PR will become far more crucial for making inroads in large projects in the future.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#59

Post by [deleted] »

9283409232 wrote: post #38
kazinator wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a well settled practice in computing that you just don't plagiarize code. Even a small snippet. Even if copyright law would consider such a small thing "fair use".

This isn't 100% true meaning it isn't well settled. Have people already forgotten Google vs Oracle? Google ended up winning that after years and years but the judgements went back and forth and there are around 4 or 5 guidelines to determine whether something is or isn't fair use and generative AI would fail at a few of those.

[deleted]

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#60

Post by zer00eyz »

benlivengood wrote: post #35

Open source and libre/free software are particularly vulnerable to a future where AI-generated code is ruled to be either infringing or public domain. In the former case, disentangling AI-edits from human edits could tie a project up in legal proceedings for years and projects don't have any funding to fight a copyright suit. Specifically, code that is AI-generated and subsequently modified or incorporated in the res…

> or public domain

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/ai-art-us-copyright-office...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...

Im pretty sure that this ship has sailed.

Post reply on HN