• Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    That is quite the statement. Is there any legal precedence for that? Yes, I know the technical why, but a blanket “one AI contribution and its over” is a little over the top, to put it mildly, and sounds like an extreme over generalization of a complicated problem

    • quick_snail@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Nope, it hasn’t been litigated yet.

      But it stands to reason that AI is a derivative of copyrighted material (unless the training set was released and confirmed to only contain otherwise). And there is loads of case precedent for fucking defendants hard on that violation

      • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Hi, I’m a software engineer.

        I’ve also been trained on copyrighted material, because every codebase I’ve worked on for money has been proprietary.

        Does that mean I can’t touch open source code? I could accidentally use a snippet I’ve written before in some other setting.

        The real licensing issue of AI use shouldn’t even apply to Linux because it’s already GPL. GPL infects anything it touches so if you use GPL-trained AI on an MIT project and it spits out something resembling the GPL code it was trained on, that would make that MIT project a GPL project. It would also make your proprietary projects GPL projects.

        • Guttural@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          Français
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          25 days ago

          You’re unlikely to spit out code from your corpus verbatim, so the answer to your first question is a resounding no. If you did copy from your previous jobs, you’d be liable.