How would such limited use fix the plagiarism? Here’s a lawyer demo’ing the issue: github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/38072#issueco…

This isn’t a legal advice. Check out the link, make your own picture.

Relevant article: gnu.org/…/you-the-problem-tpm2-solves.en.html

And if anybody thought TPM provides security: elevenforum.com/…/tpm-2-0-is-a-must-they-said-it-… gist.github.com/…/45e612345376a65c56d067883453516… sophos.com/…/serious-security-tpm-2-0-vulns-is-yo… www.covertswarm.com/…/how-secure-are-tpm-chips

Reader, you know what’s likely most secure? FOSS code, peer-reviewed and regularly patched.

I don’t get why one would trust security theater, aka TPM and secureboot.

That doesn’t take into account the extensively researched plagiarism concerns. It’s not just that it’s low quality slop but that some of us think the GPL doesn’t work if you can just train LLMs on GPL, then have it spit out GPL snippets un-GPL’ed.

Some people literally un-GPL projects via AI in one go. While that’s the egregious version, any LLM use seems to risk having a similar effect in a smaller scope.

This isn’t only a legal question. At least if you think the GPL has societal and moral value.

Problem is, LLM code prediction will likely plagiarize too. Some argue “it’s too short I can’t get sued”, but even if that were universally true (don’t know, IANAL) that still leaves the ethics and morals of seemingly stealing some lines literally hook and sinker with every punctuation bit and intricancy from GPL code bases, without attribution.

Some simply think that’s bad for FOSS, notwithstanding other ways seems to harms FOSS.