@aral Honestly I don't actually hate this.

It's a tool. The _user_ is responsible for what they're submitting. It's putting code generated by them in their name. I think this is actually good.

@glyph Yeah, I disagree. Code isn't ingredients and it's not “contamination" any more than you should label “I used search and replace on this”

What you want to know is whether it was well engineered or not.

And in fact, this is almost entirely orthogonal to "safety”. This is an engineering product. The safety comes from processes and whether or not _anyone checked the work done was right_, not the inputs.

@aredridel @glyph What "AI coding tools" *should* be putting in commit messages is:

Co-Authored-By: An unknown and unknowable set of people who did not consent to their work being used this way and to which there is no license for inclusion.

@dalias Morally arguable but not actually true under the copyright regime that exists.

At what point does learning from others constitute their authorship?

@aredridel LLM slop is nothing like "learning from others".

But if you recall, we even took precautions against that. FOSS projects reimplementing proprietary things were careful to exclude anyone who might had read the proprietary source, disassembled proprietary code, worked at the companies who wrote or had access to that code, etc.

@dalias @aredridel A test which LLMs fail by the very virtue of their functioning mechanisms.

It's all fundamentally derivative of the training dataset and it has been exposed both to AGPL and to proprietary datasets.