259
this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2026
259 points (91.9% liked)
Fuck AI
7923 readers
834 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sad this article doesn't talk about why open source projects reject AI, specifically because of the legal implications of all the copyright violations baked into their training data
Linus himself doesn't talk about it, and pretends he doesn't know.
I would have to look it up but I am pretty sure this has been discussed in the past
If you find anything interesting, please let me know, I'm interested!
None of that will ever be prosecuted, because it was done through the wealthy and their favored praxis.
That is only an excuse.
That is not how copyright works. But if you expand IP law that way, open source projects will be the first victim.
I don't understand why so many down votes. It is like a rock and a hard place this IP but yet crapitalism snickers at the top. It is like " Thanks for the free work turds" like we are entering the new dark ages of Korpo Kyber Krime
Yeah. I think anything that contradicts that AI "steals" (not learns and not copies) is downvoted as heretical. I've thought about this quite a bit.
They never had anything copyrightable taken away from them by an AI. But they might be afraid of loosing their jobs. So they ignore facts, deny reality and logic. I think this type of "post truth world" behavior really took over in the last decade.
I also have a more crazy theory but it's a bit silly lol
I think for many people LLMs and generative AI represent this "deep insult" to who we are as humans. LLMs can be more creative than something like 50% of humans. Like if you'd prompt 1000 humans to draw something creative and then let other humans evaluate their results with that of LLMs, the LLMs would probably win in terms of "this is more creative". Maybe it's only 10% or maybe it's even more. Maybe it'll stall and maybe it'll continue to improve. But it's a question that can be scientifically answered.
And many hollywood movies, romcoms, sitcoms, dramadies, they all have the protagonist do something "creative" and sometimes it's even a plot point that they should get to do their creative thing professionally. It's idealized as the ultimate expression of humanity. And then LLMs came and took a massive shit on that idea lol. A program replacing someone writing or drawing something is seen as something far "worse" than a robot or machine replacing someone doing manual labor. One is liberation of dirty work, the other is supplanting and making irrelevant.
So it can't be. The insult and psychological wound is so deep that they now must deny reality and attack anything that contradicts them lol.
Obviously actual "high art" or "high culture" is really something completely different than the content and entertainment slop that is produced today, even before AI. Actual high art isn't in danger of being replaced by LLM until we create an AI that is sapient.
Actually that is how copyright law could work.
On the ingest/training side I think the courts have been mostly consistent with your view and sided with the AI companies, though some lawyers are still opening new cases so at least some of them aren't so sure.
The problem is the defense the AI companies have given is still a potential problem for software. They state that even as the ingest of works allow the model to generate material that would violate the copyright of trained data, that it's the fault of the operator, not the AI company. So even if a user oblivious to the original material manages to get a model to create a knock-off of a copyrighted work, it is still the user's fault, not the AI company.
This implication to my knowledge has not been tested in court. I haven't seen cases where someone found and sued an AI user for plausibly oblivious copyright violation. Now I cannot imagine that the consequences can be very punitive if they can show the AI models will produce such a violation without the user indicating any awareness of the source material, but they may still demand it be ripped out, which depending on age of code could be a huge mess and a great loss of functionality of other things that depend on the offending code. Even if the particular case could be won on arguments about whether it meets the criteria of an infringement in that case, fighting the case is hard enough.
The question is whether the risk of accidental copyright violation and the risk of such a violation even being noticed is significant enough. Currently in the GenAI hype world where tons of money is seen to be had from fueling the phenomenon, that risk appears low. Question is if the hype dies down and the money suckers want more money, will they at least start making copyright claims against folks focusing on how the AI defense was to throw the users under the bus. Again, open source projects themselves are probably low on the list of targets, as financial penalties seem unlikely, but it can't be ruled out.
This seems equivalent to someone buying a hammer from a pawn shop. Upon authorities finding out that hammer had been stolen or used in a crime instead of charging or investigating the Pawn Shop owner, they charge the person who bought the hammer because they made things with the assistance of "stolen goods".
Used car / firearm / AI-assisted-code / other-example-here
Except the pawn shop is known for stealing from the community and the person that bought the hammer knew it was stolen.
Kind of complicates things.
No, it's equivalent to a loaf of bread that can be magically copied for no cost infinitely. But someone lays claim on that particular loaf on the basis of "intellectual property".
Someone who once studied how this magic loaf of bread works made a magic cake, so we can all eat cake instead. Obviously the owner of the loaf doesn't like that and sues, shouting "he's a thief!". Millions of morons start to pick up the chant "Thief! Thief! He stole the fire of the Gods! Lock him up!".
Now the obvious question becomes: When do analogies spiral out of control?