this is mind blowing to me, i have never seen open source people be so invested in promoting copyrights.

Except that you didn’t say any of that in this specific thread

I didn't? Let's see...

AI can in fact rarely do wonderful things and just creates slop

Yet you are hallucinating that I "glorify psychophantic prediction models"?

But as lobbyists directing this fake mud fight
[...]
as long as you have still not gone insane and argue rationally the bombardment of at least one pro-, one anti-AI post/article about Linux per day has to continue…

Yet somehow you missed the criticism of this manufactured "discussion" and the idiots behind it because they want the AI hype to keep going?

Should I have read your mind?

No, you should have read then answered to my actual comments, not to some hallucinated strawman made up in your mind.

I also never said that you thought AI was great.

So you are not only hallucinating other people's comments but your own, too, but don't remember categorising me as someone getting slop produced by AI and then proudly presenting it as my own creation?

for you to turn around and go “I made dis”.

Seriously... get help.

/ignore

Nah, that's you.

If the use and inclusion of LLM derived output is truly defensible, why would you need to conceal its provenance or existence?

The debasement and solvency of competency wrought by the unbridled abdication to responsibility to such an incompetent construct is beyond depressing, this Is truly a world no longer worth inhabiting.

Open source developers do not have the power to enact change. AI needs regulation which must come from governments.

no it is not fundamentally unethical. Please stop perpetuating this stupid take. AI is not designed to do unethical things. The profit motive drives companies to doing unethical things with it. If it weren’t for AI, they’d use something else.

Please don’t lose sight of the root cause of the problems, which is profit above everything.
Equally you could say that fossil fuel combustion engines are fundamentally unethical because they cause climate change and all sorts of health issues.

Most technologies are neither ethical nor unethical. It is how you use them and what for that might be ethical or unethical. Sure they can be more or less useful. We can argue about that. But technology itself is orthogonal to ethics. Unless it is nukes or anything that is explicitly designed to do harm and nothing else.

What code does is the least intetesting part of it for you?

Idk, AI use doesn't automatically make something slop just like writing by hand doesn't automatically make it good.

Cuck coder is an evolution of vibe coding because the programmer watches a LLMs do its job.

Honestly yes. In all but the most niche of software there are dozens if not hundreds of versions of the same application. I am awash in options. In an age where, for most small use cases, I can literally ask a chatbot to generate an app for my use case a code's utility is even less valuable than it was before.

As to the distinction of AI = bad and Human = good; this is, again, presupposing utility as not only the primary but singular axis I'm supposed to judge code.

Like I've said elsewhere here. For me I judge code by a combination of its utility, it's ability to foster community and the community it has fostered, the Inherit "beauty" of the code itself, the richness of the documentation, the degree to which the code exposes new ideas to me, and most of all I read the code, and use it, in order to understand the thoughts and feeling of the person who made it.

I judge code largely by the same axis by which I judge a painting or a novel. I don't consume AI 'art' or AI 'writing', why would I consume AI 'code'?

That would be solved by removing public mentions of ai companies in the ai disclosure notice.

thank you for being the literal personification of a westoid.

Anytime bro <3

What a lame excuse for complicity.

The question is why it matters in the first place. As long as the person submitting code takes ownership of the code, and there is a review of the code being done the same as before, nothing actually changes. Your whole line of argument is absurd because it's premised on the idea that we can trust code produced by a human more than code produced by an LLM. And that's obviously not true because humans make mistakes all the time. So, the focus on how the code was produced is fundamentally misguided. The focus in any successful project is on validation through things like code reviews, specifications, testing, and other well established practices. That's what responsible teams have always done.

So then the person who doesn't put that in, doesn't get reviewed. Are you dumb enough to think everyone well follow the rules?

Who said anything about concealing it? Not making a disclaimer mandatory and concealing something are two different things.

From the point of view of a reviewer, the code of the PR is all that matters. You shouldn't look at who wrote the code or what tools they used.

If the code is slop, it does not matter that a human or an AI wrote it, it is slop. Same if the code does what it's supposed to do and has a high enough quality to pass review.

In their eyes it does something though it gives them something to rage about.

The coder doesn't disclose what compiler he tested against. Doesn't say what OS they where using or programs.

Genie is not going back into the bottle.

That's an amount of speculation that is completely unnecessary at this stage.

What I find funny do the people who oppose llms for ethical.reasons also oppose every other tech they use for ethical reasons.

Has anyone thought about what AI code does to the license of each file it’s used in?

If AI code can’t be copyrighted does it also follow that it can’t be protected by copyleft rules?

Do I have to make ai source available when I reuse some part of it in my project?

This should be a real concern for commercial software, maybe not Linux, but all the vibe coding game studios should lose copyrights on things that AI codes.

To me, it matters because the use and reliance on LLMs demonstrably erodes cognitive capacity and ability, and submissions tainted by them should be subjected to an elevated level of scrutiny, which can only be facilitated with a consummate element of transparency. That elevated scrutiny could, and probably should, also be applied to non-LLM infected submissions, but doing so wouldn’t negate the labelling of authorship.

Good faith proponents of LLM assisted tooling should be in favour of overt transparency and labelling, as it’s a requirement to facilitate future historical analysis of their utility, efficacy, and legitimacy; you know, to build a body of evidence.

I assume you're citing a couple of studies with tiny samples that have been going around here. There's very little solid evidence to support the claim that LLMs demonstrably erode cognitive capacity. But if you have large scale, peer reviewed studies definitively showing this to be the case feel free to share them.

People lose certain skills working with LLMs, but that has always been the case with automation. Very few people know how to write assembly by hand, and practically nobody knows how to operate punch cards. Yet, we hardly claim that there was some loss of cognitive capacity as a result. People just spend their time focusing on different things now.

And I've already explained to you why the focus on the tooling is deeply misguided. You ignored my points entirely, which tells me that you're not actually trying to have a discussion in good faith here yourself.

poisoning the young generations mind

literal cult behaviour, lol

good luck with that. software development has changed and it will never be the same. you will not be able to achieve the level of security required without ai assistance, you can't beat a machine. and this is something you'll see everywhere and is the tip of exponential curve.

Genie requires a fuckton of food. If you don't feed it, it will die.

For the third time; “some people lie so nobody should care about the truth” is not the argument you think it is.

I have also been thinking about this, because as far as I know you're correct - at least under US copyright law, AI output is not copyrightable, and since you don't own it you can't license it. All AI code is public domain (again, at least in the US). It's surprising to me that there has been little discussion about this, and Linus himself has not addressed it

I feel like we are moving into the acceptance phase.

There is a meme on Lemmy from a week or two ago that explains the development of cuck-coder.

To me it matters because if you got code from someone else, you'd probably want to credit it to them, right? So why shouldn't LLM output be treated the same?

What would be the point of jumping through these hoops in the first place? As OP pointed out, the disclosure requirement is itself irrelevant due to the amount of scrutiny the code goes through. So we're forcing disclosure to... shame AI users? Discourage its use?

The code, or parts of the code, may not be under copyright, but why does that matter? I suppose in the rare cases when it leaks we could freely use the AI generated parts of it, but how do you untangle the AI stuff from the human written stuff? It’s a minefield for a for-profit company. And for the open source community it doesn’t really matter since AI can reverse engineer pretty much any game now and generate copyright free code from it.

LLM is a tool that a human uses, do you also credit your IDE when you write code?

I’ll say we go the opposite of a penguin - a polar bear. And then go the way of Open Office and call it Librux.

I’m sure that will catch on

tiring

Hate to tell you this but that's probably a core feature here.

Someone was trying to argue here that code is less about what it actually does and more about the feelings that drove them (as distinct from thought processes or motivating logic behind them) and since AI betrays this, must AI disclosure blah blah!!!

Once arguments have entered the realm of absurdity and legitimate discourse is overshadowed by bad faith discussions of shifting goalposts and gish gallops, the only question that remains is who stands to gain the most from the english speaking world being slow to adopt AI.

Once reasonable heads have left the room and decline to discuss any topic on AI (because they expect the toxic environment devoid of reason), only agenda driven collectives and a handful of their useful idiots will steer future discourse.

My IDE does not write the code for me, at most it autocompletes words.

...I was on your side at the start but you really don't need to keep poking the bear.

Oh, you're not even the same person. All you've done here is poke bears that were already cowed.

The LLM works on the exact same principle as autocomplete does. You're just drawing an arbitrary line on technology you're used to.

Anyone who believes, and confidently espouses, that the autocomplete from the dictionary included in an IDE is functionally indistinguishable from the function and output of a LLM, is betraying a foundational lack of understanding of either. The former is constrained and deterministic, whereas the latter is explosively imprecise and intrinsically unreliable.

You keep invoking the notion that LLMs are merely tools, and should be treated as mindless subservient instruments deployed by a programmer in command. The thing, however, with tools is they can often trivially become weapons if wielded with incendiary intent, or indiscriminate instruments of destruction under the direction of incompetence.

Skill is acquired through use over time. LLMs are far too new for anyone to have legitimately accrued enough experience which could be mistaken for competence. With this in mind, anyone claiming to know what they, or the model they’re poking with a prompt, are doing, is a charlatan.

Anyone who makes lazy straw man arguments is betraying utter lack of intellectual integrity. Nowhere did I say their output is indistinguishable, what I actually said is that they work on the same principles. These are both stochastic systems.

The LLMs are very obviously mere tools that are instruments programmers use. Every tool can be wielded as a weapon, there's nothing unique about LLMs in this regard. I also have no idea what this has to do with AI use disclosure which is the context for this thread.

How LLMs work is well understood, and that's a completely different subject from how to use them effectively as a skill. With this in mind, the person who can't even make a coherent argument, and keeps conflating unrelated things, is the actual charlatan here.

True in some regards, however the word completion in my IDE is only active when I'm typing new code in, it only picks words that already exist in the code (along with language specific keywords, etc). It never types the following word for me, and I have to manually accept the completion I want. It is inactive when I'm typing comments in, and so on.

The LLM you tell to write you a function, and it writes the whole thing, comments and all. It's not quite the same. The original GitHub Copilot was closest to traditional IDE completion though, and there if it wrote a whole long function for me I'd definitely give credit where it's due.

It's a different workflow, but all LLM does is just more automation. The intention and the ideas still come from the developer, just because the tool automates the work of typing out code doesn't really change anything. Nobody who's done any serious software development thinks that typing code is the important part of coding.

"bear"? That's bit of an overstatement.

Because the main utility of Art is to be observed. The main utility of code is to be compiled into a piece of software.

Why shouldn’t I treat alignment with my values, the degree to which the code fostered a community that was pro-social, or the beauty of the code [...]

I never said you shouldn't. Just that it's secondary to code's functionality. Also, specifically in case of the Linux kernel, the community and its values stay the same. All that changed is a clause in the rules.

The LLM can come up with all the implementation details and such by itself, while the developer only provides wishes for new features. Figuring out where to draw the line between it just being fully "vibecoded" or being code the developer would have written manually is super hard, so why not just always say if LLM generated the code? What's the harm in that?

Anybody who's actually worked with these tools knows that you absolutely can't just provide wishes for features and end up with anything remotely resembling quality code. And telling whether a human was involved in writing the code or not isn't hard at all because LLM written code always looks like shit.

The harm in focusing on the tool rather than the code is pretty obvious. Doing so dilutes the responsibility of the developer, since now they can say the LLM introduced a bug or made a bad decision. When the ownership rests with the human, then they are responsible for the code and what it does. How the code was produced is also completely irrelevant, Either the code is clean and it does what it says or not. Nothing else actually matters.

Or you could just shame them for not checking the output. People should never be get to freely deflect all blame to the LLMs, that's just stupid and the fact it happens is complete brainrot caused by these things.

Hence, why discussion of whether LLMs were used or not is actively harmful. If you focus on the code and its quality then the whole problem goes away entirely. The person is responsible for the code and what tool they used is irrelevant. Your approach creates a whole new problem that didn't exist in the first place.