160 Followers
130 Following
232 Posts

Mostly Infosec stuff, though I also enjoy terrible puns, music, and science-y stuff. Twitter diaspora from @gclef_

Opinions my own, my employer can speak for themselves.

An obligatory bloghttps://blog.g-clef.net/
Githubhttps://github.com/g-clef
Dayjobhttps://www.domaintools.com/authors/aaron-gee-clough

Apparently there's a Shane MacGowan tribute album coming out soon. The track from Bruce Springsteen:

https://youtu.be/r_Z3JL42L5Q

Bruce Springsteen - A Rainy Night in Soho (Official Lyric Video)

YouTube

The first thing I noticed was that the pain was gone. The tall, thin, hooded figure let me bask in that for a moment.

IT IS TIME

"Oh," I said, looking down at the frail vessel I had inhabited all my life. "Right."

COME

"Do you remember," I asked as we walked, "everyone you come for?"

YES

"Fondly?"

I DO NOT JUDGE. AS A RULE, I SPEND LITTLE TIME WITH PEOPLE AS THEY LIVE

"No, but you spend some time with them after, like now."

1/2

One of my nice friends at Hurricane Electric gave me a dead 100G-LR4 optic to tear apart for your entertainment, so for the sake of your entertainment, lets dig into it! 🧵
The next Oracle vs Google case could end up with a nuclear option of "you don't even own the thing you're suing me for copying...you said yourself an LLM wrote it."
Lastly, I'm also thinking about all the statements from CEO's to the effect of "90% of our code last quarter was automatically written." I feel like those statements are going to bite them the next time they claim any sort of copyright ownership in court.
Also, I feel like any code or patches generated by an openclaw system can't be open-source - the code isn't owned, so neither the agent nor its operator can assign copyright or use copyright to enforce any license terms.
I'm thinking particularly of things like "write code to resolve my open tickets" or "run this query, decide on the important data points, and write a report on the results". Would you put out a report that you can't claim copyright on? Maybe, but you should do so knowingly, not accidentally.
I *think* that means anything generated autonomously by an LLM agent or an openclaw system isn't eligible for copyright, and the group doing it doesn't own the results.
Also, an earlier copyright case, the "monkey selfie" case, established that even if you do lots of setup, if a non-human actually *creates* the work, it's not eligible for copyright. The fact that a monkey pressed a button to take a picture made the picture un-copyright-able.
The Copyright office guidelines (that the Supreme Court left in place) say that a human must be part of the creation process of a work for it to qualify for copyright. They explicitly say that merely prompting an LLM and then accepting the output is not enough.