this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2026
190 points (92.8% liked)

Technology

87680 readers
3326 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 167 points 11 hours ago (7 children)

AI code bans may be impossible to enforce in the first place

I hate this attitude that if a rule or standard can't be enforced perfectly, we shouldn't strive for it. We can't (reasonably) run an OS free of proprietary software, does that mean the free software movement should just give up?

[–] Vespair@lemmy.zip 17 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

"People are going to murder anyway, so why even make murder illegal?"

You are correct, you should make rules even understanding that they will be broken by some.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Yes, debugging with an LLM is absolutely as bad as murder. Probably worse! \s

[–] Vespair@lemmy.zip 1 points 29 minutes ago

Not even remotely what I suggested.

[–] Muehe@lemmy.ml 15 points 5 hours ago

I hate this attitude that if a rule or standard can’t be enforced perfectly, we shouldn’t strive for it.

"Murder bans may be impossible to enforce in the first place"

[–] Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus 5 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

This isn't a case where something can't be enforced perfectly, it is a case of something that can't be enforced at all going into the future. Every tool that can reliably detect LLM code is at the same time the tool used for adversarial training, making the generated code look more and more human. We are already at the point where for plain english the false positives and false negatives go through the roof, making these tools very unreliable and when applied automatically a liability. Code is a lot more formalized, with a lot less personal variance (spelling, vocabulary and grammar are basically fixed - only the used logic and how it is implemented is variable), making detection harder by default than in natural languages.

If LLM code can't be detected anymore by automated means - and that state of things is approaching fast - then any policy about allowing or restricting LLM code is not worth the paper you would use to print it out. But that's not so much of a problem. The more important policy to set, that can also be enforced, is that everyone submitting code has to take personal responsibility regarding the quality of the submission. Delivering bad code - when not happening while training to become a better coder and looking for feedback - has to lead to consequences based on the seriousness of the case and if it's a repeat offender. Anyone using an LLM to spit out bullshit LQ code will run into that kind of rule very fast.

[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 33 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I think one way is to make people realize that there is a concept in copyright called Threshold of Originality, meaning that because machine generated output in itself is not creative work, it's not copyrightable. You can do literally anything with it, the licenses attached don't matter. The GPL is not enforceable and no proprietary EULA is enforceable.

[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

The entire point of GPL is to forcefully extract copyright out of the code in the first place.

[–] harmbugler@piefed.social 7 points 3 hours ago

No? The point of the GPL is to leverage such a copyright.

[–] hirihit640@sh.itjust.works 11 points 8 hours ago

I think of it like age verification. Slipperly slope to a proprietary kernel-level "security compliance module" on all devices, aka the end of general computation.

[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

I hate this attitude that if a rule or standard can’t be enforced perfectly, we shouldn’t strive for it.

This is the entire basis for the War on (some) Drugs. Guess what? Drugs won.

Power is nothing without enforceability, and purposely implementing rules or laws that can't be enforceable is a form of malice and discrimination through selective enforcement.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

People are begging to regulate "AI" when it doesn't even exist and there's not even an objective definition.

Absolute recipe for failure or worse.

[–] snooggums@piefed.world -1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

I agree, we should absolutely toss out all those laws against murder because they can't be enforced perfectly or equitably.