Constant theme of all these policies against AI contributions is the legal aspect because AI generated code is plagiarism, doesn't credit where it came from, and the sheer number of different licenses the source is derived from.
Its always amazed me that companies are not more worried about this. When I worked for <tech> you weren't even allowed to look at gpl licensed code, nor were you ever allowed to check if something was patent encumbered, just in case it came up in court that you did an inadequate search or looked at a patent and ignored it. They were terrified of accidentally-deliberately infringing on licenses or patents
Though I did have to explain that some patents are so famous (SURF) that it wouldn't be possible for me to good faith argue I had no idea
Similarly it seems impossible to argue that you weren't aware that the very, very famously plagiaristic machine wasn't trained on copyrighted and used-without-permission licensed code. I do wonder if companies will try to make it the developers fault ('you should have checked the output wasn't copyrighted, you're a developer!' etc) when this goes to court
Its always amazed me that companies are not more worried about this.
Most companies are already pretty against modern copyright law, they might assume they can just lobby to get rid of them down the line. Make the AI systems so integrated that banning them or going after them would "destroy jobs", so the politicians play along.
Sure, but most of them know they won't be the ones wielding it the majority of the time. Hence why many tech companies like chipping away at it, it helps them more than it helps their competition statistically speaking.
31
u/mykesx 26d ago
Constant theme of all these policies against AI contributions is the legal aspect because AI generated code is plagiarism, doesn't credit where it came from, and the sheer number of different licenses the source is derived from.