i think the copyright question is still unanswered: it could turn out that any LLM-generated code is a copyright violation by definition unless trained exclusively on a clean, legitimately-obtained dataset (which few of the major models are).

Will projects that allow LLM contributions have to roll back years of progress when the other shoe finally drops? Seems like a huge risk, especially for FOSS and copyleft. I think disallowing LLM-written contributions until this is all sorted out in the courts is the pragmatic move from a legal perspective.

[–] esc@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's answered, unless all big tech is going down suddenly, they are allowed, copyright violations are for the poor anyway.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago

Note that it is mostly 'answered', but only really for the services and models themselves. Part of the defense in the case where Getty showed that it produced knockoffs of the Getty images was that "well, as the operator you are responsible for the output, not us".

So the operator is still on the hook if someone comes along and claims, even unwitting, infringement. In practice for code that's likely a tall order, as the sloperator is likely to keep their so close as to be a knock off pretty private, or the open source developer lacks the resources to realisticly track down offenders.

Closed source companies are more likely to come after folks, but that's a lower risk because they are so maniacly defensive about their code it probably never trained a model.

load more comments (16 replies)