this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2026
278 points (90.6% liked)
Technology
88303 readers
2906 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- 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
view the rest of the comments
On top of that, regardless of however you feel about AI, there are so many questions about copyright and ownership here, that as-of-yet remain untried and unanswered by the courts, that it's essentially impossible to know what the legal ramifications will turn out to be, when accepting "AI code" in your project. I definitely fear that it could turn out to be a sort of trojan horse against especially the GPL, and other copyleft licenses. I conaider it to be risky to use AI code, on that basis alone.
True, but how will you prove that code was written by AI and not yourself? Any people can generate code, modify some variables to incorporate in their code, and it won't be any different than copying it from stackoverflow. Unless the code is written in a "very specific AI way" it won't be possible to distinguish.
Oh, I don't think any court would rule that using LLM generated code automatically infringes on the copyright of everyone whose text was used to train it, independently of the degree of similarity between the generated output and the original text(s).
But LLMs have a habit of sometime, and not too infrequently either, reproducing parts of their training material verbatim, as their output. As long as it's only sufficiently small "snippets" of text or code, it's unlikely to raise significant copyright concerns - but the fact is that it's not actually that rare that an LLM will replicate larger sections of text from its training material, spanning across many lines. What's more, LLMs don't advise you of this, when their output is a replica of a significant part of an already-existing, copyrighted text. But you'll be infringing on somebody's copyright, whether you know it or not, irregardless of whether you aquired the text from an LLM or elsewise. That's a big liability to accept in a large project, that frequently uses LLM-generated code. It would be a minefield.
I'd hope that they will stick to non-retroactivity for new laws and rulings on AI, or else the world will have a giant mess on its hands. But I have the feeling that we're moving towards an eventual, enduring weakening of copyright law, which is totally fine by me. Copyright has done more harm than good to the world (imo).