hperrin

joined 1 year ago
[–] hperrin@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 minutes ago

Yes, that makes sense. People have always been able to intentionally commit copyright infringement. However, it has historically been fairly difficult to unintentionally commit copyright infringement. That’s no longer the case. AI makes it very easy to unintentionally commit copyright infringement. That’s a good reason to ban it outright.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.ca 2 points 18 minutes ago

There are so many reasons not to include any AI generated code.

https://sciactive.com/human-contribution-policy/#Reasoning

[–] hperrin@lemmy.ca 1 points 23 minutes ago (2 children)

Unless the code the AI generated is a copy of copyrighted code, of course. Then it would be copyright infringement.

I can cause the AI to spit out code that I own the copyright to, because it was trained on my code too. If someone used that code without including attribution to me (the requirement of the license I release my code under), that would be copyright infringement. Do you understand what I mean?

[–] hperrin@lemmy.ca 1 points 29 minutes ago

The copyright office said material generated by AI is not copyrighted, even if that material is subsequently revised by the AI through additional prompts. That includes code. The GPL can only be used on copyrighted code. It is a copyleft license because it uses copyright law as a mechanism to enforce its terms. If you believe you can enforce a license on public domain material, that’s simply a gross misunderstanding of copyright law.

Yes, it will hopefully be a very small part of the kernel, but what happens thirty years from now if the kernel is all AI generated code? It may be a slippery slope, but it’s a valid slippery slope. The more the kernel is AI generated, the less of it the license can cover.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago

Sure, you can license them, but that license is unenforceable, because you don’t own the copyrights, so you can’t sue them for copyright infringement. And you’d have to be a fool to agree to a license for public domain material. You can do whatever you want with it, no license necessary.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago

If the author is an LLM, then the author is not a human.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago

I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. Any portions of the kernel that are public domain can be used by anyone for any purpose without following the terms of the GPL. AI generated code is public domain. To make sure all parts of the kernel are protected by the GPL, public domain code should not be accepted unless absolutely necessary.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

Ok, well here are quotes from the US Copyright Office that establish that what I said is true:

https://sciactive.com/human-contribution-policy/#More-Information

[–] hperrin@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Distributing under the GPL is a software license agreement which is absolutely a contract:

A software license agreement is a legal contract that grants you permission to use software without transferring ownership. The software creator retains intellectual property rights while giving you specific usage rights under defined terms and conditions.

- https://ironcladapp.com/journal/contracts/software-license-agreement

[–] hperrin@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago

Sure, you can license it whatever you want, but I can too, because it’s public domain. And neither of us can enforce those license terms on the other, because again, it’s public domain.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago

The copyright office has made it explicitly clear that those tools do not interfere with the traditional elements of authorship, and that the use of LLMs does. So, if you don’t want to take my word for it, take the US Copyright Office’s word for it.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (4 children)

Copyleft doesn’t mean it’s not copyrighted. Copyleft is not a legal term. “Copyleft” licenses are enforced through copyright ownership.

Did you read the quotes from the copyright office I linked to? I am going to go ahead and trust the copyright office over you on issues of copyrightability.

 
 

(I didn’t know where to post this on Lemmy. If it’s not appropriate here, please let me know, or just take it down.)

There is a secret hidden trans theme in Port87 Mail. I’ve never disclosed it publicly, but for Trans Day of Visibiliy, I’m going to. You can activate it by going into your settings on desktop, opening the theme dropdown, then typing “traaaaaaaaaaaaaa” (I don’t remember how many As there are). There are other secret themes, that maybe I’ll disclose later. For now, enjoy pink, white, and blue email. The best color theme! 🙂

 

One has the body of a snake, but the head and legs of a lizard. I call it a snizard. The other has the body of a lizard, but the head and lack of legs of a snake. I call it a lake.

 

Like, every AI generated thing I’ve seen, when viewed from the eyes of someone who actually knows what they’re doing, is at best below average. Maybe some things aren’t quite as bad as the general “AI slop”, but of the things I’m actually experienced in (code and art), I just see so many amateur mistakes in everything AI.

Regarding art, AI can make really visually appealing things, but it gets the details wrong. That’s something that a below average artist does. And regarding code, it’s the same thing. Overall, it has the appearance of decent code, but it gets the details wrong, just like a below average dev. (Probably about the level of a high school senior or college freshman.)

I’m not super experienced at writing, but I can also tell that it’s not very good at that. The stories it writes just aren’t compelling, but I’m not experienced enough to tell you why. And the same with music. It’s just below average, but I couldn’t tell you why.

I’m not trying to sound elitist by saying this, but I’ve noticed people who aren’t very good at these things tend to praise how good the AI is.

So, is it just me, or are the big fans of AI just below average at whatever the AI is doing?

 

A new free, general policy to ensure a project only accepts human authored contributions. Released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, so anyone is free to use and modify it.

I’ve started to add it to my projects. Eventually, it will be on all of my projects. I made it so that any project could adopt it, or modify it to their needs. It’s got a thorough and clear definition of what is banned, too, so it should help any argument over pull requests.

Hopefully more projects will outright ban AI generated code (and other AI generated material). Feel free to share it with any projects you think might be interested, but please do not be pushy if they don't want to adopt something like this.

If this is not something you're a fan of, you absolutely do not need to adopt it in your project. This is for projects that want to ban AI contributions, which is their right.

 

A new free, general policy to ensure a project only accepts human authored contributions. Released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, so anyone is free to use and modify it.

I’ve started to add it to my projects. Eventually, it will be on all of my projects. I made it so that any project could adopt it, or modify it to their needs. It’s got a thorough and clear definition of what is banned, too, so it should help any argument over pull requests.

Hopefully more projects will outright ban AI generated code (and other AI generated material). Feel free to share it with any projects you think might be interested, but please do not be pushy if they don't want to adopt something like this.

If this is not something you're a fan of, you absolutely do not need to adopt it in your project. This is for projects that want to ban AI contributions, which is their right.

 

I’ve been struggling with how to word my stance on AI with regard to my email service, Port87. Today I sat down and compiled some research to quantify my stance on it, and why I won’t be using it.

What made me want to do this now more than ever is the recent announcement that Gmail will now use AI to read your email and give you a summary instead of just showing you your email. You know, because human beings can’t be bothered to decide whether an email is important without an AI risking their security to tell them they need to pick up their dog from the vet.

 

I've been struggling with how to word my stance on AI with regard to my email service, Port87. Today I sat down and compiled some research to quantify my stance on it, and why I won't be using it.

What made me want to do this now more than ever is the recent announcement that Gmail will now use AI to read your email and give you a summary instead of just showing you your email. You know, because human beings can't be bothered to decide whether an email is important without an AI risking their security to tell them they need to pick up their dog from the vet.

 
view more: next ›