James ThomsonFeb 16

Writers: Generative AI models were built on our stolen works, are deeply unethical, and risk devaluing our entire profession.

Artists: Generative AI models were built on our stolen works, are deeply unethical, and risk devaluing our entire profession.

Developers: Wheeeeeeeeee!

Show threadColin Cornaby
@jamesthomson I think the problem is developers don't really consider any unattributed use of open source as stealing - just a mild grey area. (They should consider it stealing.)
Feb 16 at 12:54amElk
Show threadJared White (ResistanceNet ✊)Feb 16

@colincornaby @jamesthomson Open source != public domain, and free software != free (it's free speech, not free beer), but apparently many developers are clueless re: all those nuances. ☹️

Perhaps if all LLM-generated code was legally automatically placed in public domain, we'd see a bit of a light bulb moment. 😂

Show threadColin CornabyFeb 16
@jaredwhite @jamesthomson All LLM generated code is in the public domain. The commercial companies just protect it all behind private repos. If you could force them to release it that would be what you’d need.
Show threadUr Ya'arFeb 17

@colincornaby
@jaredwhite @jamesthomson

A post suggesting precisely this:
https://zomglol.wtf/@jamie/116059523957674208

Jamie Gaskins (@[email protected])

Attached: 2 images If you use AI-generated code, you currently cannot claim copyright on it in the US. If you fail to disclose/disclaim exactly which parts were not written by a human, you forfeit your copyright claim on *the entire codebase*. This means copyright notices and even licenses folks are putting on their vibe-coded GitHub repos are unenforceable. The AI-generated code, and possibly the whole project, becomes public domain. Source: https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB10922/LSB10922.8.pdf

zomglol