All code generated with help from AI should be Open Source or on Creative Commons Zero (CC0) license.
  • NaibofTabr@infosec.pubEnglish
    36·
    2 hours ago

    This is exactly how it should work. Any code copied from GNU GPL code should legally also be GNU GPL, no ifs, ands or buts.

    Oh, your training data set contains GPL code? Guess what, all the output from that model is now GPL. It’s your burden to prove that your training data does not contain any GPL code.

    • frongt@lemmy.zipEnglish
      1·
      48 seconds ago

      It’s nearly impossible to prove a negative. But it would be trivial to ask it for code from a GPL project. If it can provide it, it’s in the model.

  • gibmiser@lemmy.worldEnglish
    76·
    3 hours ago

    Imagine if any work made by AI was free use, public domain, uncopyrightable. Bet that would change the equation for corporations a bit.

    Make a movie using AI? Anyone can make copies and distribute them freely.

    • SynonymousStoat@lemmy.worldEnglish
      28·
      2 hours ago

      I’m pretty sure, at least in the USA, there have been rulings that there must be human authorship for something to have copyright protection. This has happened both in the courts and the US Copyright Office has spoken on the matter as well. If you’re interested in one of the court cases I’d suggest looking up Thaler v. Perlmutter.

      There was a stipulation though, any human made parts of a work is copyrightable, so in your scenario of copying a movie would probably still be illegal unless the entire movie was created by gen ai, but it would seem that you could probably cut the gen ai bits and release and reuse them without violating any copyright, but I’m also not a lawyer so…

      • gibmiser@lemmy.worldEnglish
        7·
        2 hours ago

        Your right, but it should apply to the whole work. We need to Stop fucking around and put the brakes on them.

        • SynonymousStoat@lemmy.worldEnglish
          8·
          2 hours ago

          I’m not 100% sure how I feel about that take. Part of me agrees, but also part of me doesn’t. Especially with big projects like a movie it could be easy for one person to slip in a tiny bit of ai generated work and now the whole movie loses its copyright? Seems like a bit too much of an overcorrection to me.

          I do strongly agree that we need to hit the brakes hard and really work through a lot of the issues gen ai has brought up.

  • Redvenom@retrolemmy.comEnglish
    1·
    20 minutes ago

    if we weren’t in a game where everyone has to collect as much money as possible, we all could be living in the 2026 that we were promised.

    • [deleted]@piefed.worldEnglish
      10·
      2 hours ago

      Also require them to get permission to use the data in the training process before they pay to use it.

  • morto@piefed.socialEnglish
    2·
    32 minutes ago

    It’s already the end of copyright. Want something protected? Jut ask ai to make a clean-room version of it /s

  • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.worldEnglish
    81·
    2 hours ago

    I think you would be suprised how much of the code that is written by AI is solving the same problems every company solves, and is totally useless outside the company. Very little of it is really novel or valuable. And that is the code not being written by AI.

  • ZeDoTelhado@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    2 hours ago

    Except generated code in a lot of places simply cannot be copyrighted for starters (there is degree this can vary from place to place, from having some edits to being just a small part of the entire project)