Can Open Source defend against copyright claims for AI contributions?
If I submit code to ReactOS that was trained on leaked Microsoft Windows code, what are the legal implications?
If I submit code to ReactOS that was trained on leaked Microsoft Windows code, what are the legal implications?
None. There is a good chance that leaked MS code found its way into training data, anyway.
I am not sure how you arrived at “none” from your second sentence. The second sentence is exactly my point.
Alternatively then, can I just use the Microsoft source code and claim that I got it from AI? That seems to be your point here.
No. If it’s a copy, then it falls under copyright regardless of how the copy is made. The question wasn’t about copying, though.
Be aware that copyright only covers the creative elements; ie things that other people would do differently. It also doesn’t cover ideas, methods, and the like. It also doesn’t cover very short or obvious creations. So, copyright on code comes from UI design, comments, names, even the ordering of lines, functions, splitting the code into files, using shorthand or not, and so on. Snippets and even short functions are typically not copyrightable. If you have some short program that anyone would write that way, then that’s not copyrightable, beyond comments and maybe names.
Have you used AI to code? You don’t say “hey, write this file” and then commit it as “AI Bot 123 aibot@company.com”.
You start writing a method and get auto-completes that are sometimes helpful. Or you ask the bot to write out an algorithm. Or to copy something and modify it 30 times.
You’re not exactly keeping track of everything the bots did.
yeah, that’s… one of the points in the article
I’ll admit I skimmed most of that train wreak of an article - I think it’s pretty generous saying that it had a point. It’s mostly recounts of people complaining about AI. But if they hid something in there about it being remarkably useful in cases but not writing entire applications or features then I guess I’m on board?
Well, sometimes I think the web is flooded with advertising an spam praising AI. For these companies, it makes perfect sense because billions of dollars has been spent at these companies and they are trying to cash in before the tides might turn.
But do you know what is puzzling (and you do have a point here)? Many posts that defend AI do not engage in logical argumentation but they argue beside the point, appeal to emotions or short-circuited argumentation that “new” always equals “better”, or claiming that AI is useful for coding as long as the code is not complex (compare that to the objection that mathematics is simple as long it is not complex, which is a red herring and a laughable argument). So, many thanks for you pointing out the above points and giving in few words a bunch of examples which underline that one has to think carefully about this topic!
The problem is that you really only see two sorts of articles.
AI is going to replace developers in 5 years!
AI sucks because it makes mistakes!
I actually see a lot more of the latter response on social media to the point where I’m developing a visceral response to the phrase “AI slop”.
Both stances are patently ridiculous though. AI cannot replace developers and it doesn’t need to be perfect to be useful. It turns out that it is a remarkably useful tool if you understand its limitations and use it in a reasonable way.
it’s a car that only explodes once in a blue moon!
No, it’s a car that breaks down once you go faster than 60km/h. It’s extremely useful if you know what you’re doing and use it only for tasks that it’s good at.
if that’s the analogy yoou want, make it 20 kmh
I used it only as last resort. I verify it before using it. I only had used it for like .11% of my project. I would not recommend AI.
My dude, I very code other humans write. Do you think I’m not verifying code written by AI?
I highly recommend using AI. It’s much better than a Google search for most things.
