not hard to believe. I’ve been using claude code and am hesitant to publish publicly because I’m concerned about copyright violations. It would be nice if there were a registry (besides github) where I could compare “new” code against public repositories.
Sorry to say but this is going to be the new normal, and it's going to be quite difficult to stop. Your moat as a creator is your personal brand and the community you build around your tools.
Hopefully the spread of AI will make more people realise that everything is a derivative work. If it wasn't an AI, it was a human standing on the shoulders of giants.
This is a very intriguing statement because it looks like it contains a truism but something is off. Yes, everything is a derivative work of some kind, what matters is the amount of added value - if it gets close to 0 as in this case, we've got bare plagiarism.
[As a side note, the problem with LLMs (sorry, the term "AI" became so muddy I prefer not to use it) is that they tend to be extremely uncreative and just average to mean. So I wouldn't expect added value in creativity itself, just helping humans with more menial tasks just like antirez is doing.]
This is the new reality. Information in the form of raw entropy encoded in weights—it doesn’t matter if it’s text, image, video, or 3D. Assets (or formerly known as assets) now belong to the big labs, if it’s on the internet.
Internet plus AI implies the tragedy of the commons manifested in the digital world.
If we step back and examine LLMs more broadly (beyond our personal use cases, beyond "economic impact", beyond the underlying computer science) what we are largely looking at is an emerging means of collaboration. I am not an expert computer scientist, and yet I can "collaborate" (I almost feel bad using this term) with expert computer scientists when my LLM helps me design my particular algorithm. I am not an expert on Indonesian surf breaks, yet I tap into an existing knowledge base when I query my LLM while planning the trip. I am very naive about a lot of things and thankfully there are numerous ways to integrate with experts and improve my capacity to engage in whatever I am naive about, LLMs offering the latest ground-breaking method.
This is the most appropriate lens through which to assess AI and its impact on open source, intellectual property, and other proprietary assets. Alongside this new form of collaboration comes a restructuring of power. It's not clear to me how our various societies will design this restructuring (so far we are collectively doing nearly nothing) but the restructuring of these power structures is not a technical process; it is cultural and political. Engineers will only offer so much help here.
For the most part, it is up to us to collectively orchestrate the new power structure, and I am still seeing very little literature on the topic. If anyone has a reading list, please share!
This will kill open source. Anything of value will be derived and re-derived and re-re-derived by bad players until no-one knows which package or library to trust.
The fatal flaw of the open internet is that bad players can exploit with impunity. It happened with email, it happened with websites, it happened with search, and now it's happening with code. Greedy people spoil good things.
I’m interested in a new kind of license which I’m calling “relational source” - not about money or whether a product is commercial but instead if there’s an actual person who wants to use the code with some kind of AGPL-esque mechanism to ensure no mindless ingestion- perhaps this would never work but it’s also breaking the spirit of everything I love about OSS to have AI erasing the contributions of the people who put their time into doing the work.
Is the allegation here that a LLM generated code that was very similar to the author's copyright protected code or that they copied the code and then tried to use AI to hide that fact?
We've seen cases where AI-generated code includes snippets that look suspiciously like they came from proprietary codebases. If an AI model was trained on copyrighted code and reproduces patterns from it, who's liable? The training process makes it really hard to trace back to original sources.
20 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 39.6 ms ] thread[As a side note, the problem with LLMs (sorry, the term "AI" became so muddy I prefer not to use it) is that they tend to be extremely uncreative and just average to mean. So I wouldn't expect added value in creativity itself, just helping humans with more menial tasks just like antirez is doing.]
I don't know if this was intentional misspelling or not but it's damn funny
Internet plus AI implies the tragedy of the commons manifested in the digital world.
This is the most appropriate lens through which to assess AI and its impact on open source, intellectual property, and other proprietary assets. Alongside this new form of collaboration comes a restructuring of power. It's not clear to me how our various societies will design this restructuring (so far we are collectively doing nearly nothing) but the restructuring of these power structures is not a technical process; it is cultural and political. Engineers will only offer so much help here.
For the most part, it is up to us to collectively orchestrate the new power structure, and I am still seeing very little literature on the topic. If anyone has a reading list, please share!
The fatal flaw of the open internet is that bad players can exploit with impunity. It happened with email, it happened with websites, it happened with search, and now it's happening with code. Greedy people spoil good things.
No, it won't kill open source, just as it hasn't killed the Internet.
That gives anyone the right to get the source code of that commit and do whatever.
The article does not specified if the company is still using the code AFTER the license change.
The rest of the points are still valid.
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
Which the other party was not doing.