However, there may be cases in which a different assessment is justified, namely when users use and operate the LLM as a tool that merely implements their personal creative intent. This could be compared somewhat more vividly to using a paintbrush. If the brush merely rolls over the paper, for example because it is dropped, no copyright-protected work is created, even if paint remains on the paper. However, if a painter deliberately swings the brush in a certain way, a protected painting can be created. If AI is used in a comparable way a copyright-protected work can indeed be created.

https://kpmg-law.de/en/ai-and-copyright-what-is-permitted-when-using-llms/

[–] SirActionSack@aussie.zone 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Best to not believe anything KPMG says about AI.

Actually if KPMG say the sky is blue you should probably go outside and check and also make sure you still have your wallet.

[–] The_Decryptor@aussie.zone 12 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Yeah any decision would be on a case by case basis, which is normally something you'd want to avoid.

I've seen a couple of Linux devs talk about how they just give a prompt to claude and walk away leaving it alone to spit out the code, none of which can be licensed as GPL. But good luck working out what specific lines of what specific patches of theirs used an LLM vs. were re-written or such.

[–] Franconian_Nomad@feddit.org 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I've seen a couple of Linux devs talk about how they just give a prompt to claude and walk away leaving it alone to spit out the code

While I share Linus opinion on LLMs, I think doing this shit is extremely stupid and lazy.

[–] TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub 5 points 5 days ago

And extremely abusive, since they don’t review the code fully, but a human must review the whole commit before accepting it. They save their time but consume that of others.

[–] fogetaboutit@programming.dev 3 points 4 days ago

yeah and the paintbrush somehow has abstracted access to millions of proprietary and copyleft licensed source code in forms of weight.

this is a clear misuse and abuse of any fair use rights, and clear push to centralisation of copyright to only a few companies with big budgets that can defend themselves.

i mean, can you really challenge and win against openai, a company backed by the govt, that your copyleft source code are misused as training data?