I'm not sure the author understands how AI learns. At this point, the fundamental "coding" knowledge is baked in, leaving little to "learn" from more code examples. The real power that coding models have comes from reasoning, testing code, and having broader integration into hardware to develop it. In other words, we've already zipped past the transfer learning phase of learning how to code.
As soon as I learned that genAI companies were inhaling everything publicly available, this was my response. I removed all my code (and websites, blog, etc.) from the public internet and no longer use permissive licenses.
Doing it was a bit painful, a loss, and psychologically difficult. But I couldn't think of any other way to protect myself from further abuse. I still can't. If/when a real solution becomes available, I'll do that instead.
I do still share my code, my websites, etc. I just made everything no longer publicly accessible and am selective about allowing access.
1. Companies will revert to closed-source and cease contributions to F/OSS projects. Their legal team will advise them that trade secrets are the only way to protect LLM-generated code.
2. Contributors to F/OSS projects, and developers who run them, will falsely claim authorship of the code written by LLMs.
These are already the most common reactions to the current legal status of LLM-generated works. If it is "uncopyrightable" and goes into the Public Domain or equivalent, then the F/OSS ideology will be considered untenable, except where software is exclusively written by hand.
This is one major reason that Codeberg, Linux, and other projects have said "no AI contributions or repos", because there is no value in being a Public-Domain-Dumping-Ground. If there is no copyright to assign, sublicense, or transfer, then there is no value in the content to any hosting service.
> Contributors to F/OSS projects, and developers who run them, will falsely claim authorship of the code written by LLMs
It's only "falsely" if the courts rule that LLM-written code is not copyrightable, and so far there's no indication of that happening, although I do see a lot of people secretly wishing for that to be true.
7 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 24.3 ms ] threadDoing it was a bit painful, a loss, and psychologically difficult. But I couldn't think of any other way to protect myself from further abuse. I still can't. If/when a real solution becomes available, I'll do that instead.
I do still share my code, my websites, etc. I just made everything no longer publicly accessible and am selective about allowing access.
1. Companies will revert to closed-source and cease contributions to F/OSS projects. Their legal team will advise them that trade secrets are the only way to protect LLM-generated code.
2. Contributors to F/OSS projects, and developers who run them, will falsely claim authorship of the code written by LLMs.
These are already the most common reactions to the current legal status of LLM-generated works. If it is "uncopyrightable" and goes into the Public Domain or equivalent, then the F/OSS ideology will be considered untenable, except where software is exclusively written by hand.
This is one major reason that Codeberg, Linux, and other projects have said "no AI contributions or repos", because there is no value in being a Public-Domain-Dumping-Ground. If there is no copyright to assign, sublicense, or transfer, then there is no value in the content to any hosting service.
On the contrary: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/CAHk-=wi4zC+Ze8e+p3tMv8T...
It's only "falsely" if the courts rule that LLM-written code is not copyrightable, and so far there's no indication of that happening, although I do see a lot of people secretly wishing for that to be true.