Don't use LLM generated code in your projects yet!
-
There are only two strategies which are acceptable: either AI model output is completely illegal because of copyright stuff (this is unlikely to happen because there is now too much money behind it), or AI model output is fully in the public domain, which has its own problems but at least is an even playing field.
There won't be a middle ground that is safe. Because they want something that looks like a "middle ground", but really, all it does is lock in the big players' control over information, forever.
I fully expect well funded companies to repeatedly challenge "AI cannot be copywritten because it wasn't human generated", and I expect it will be continually chipped away. That's going to make things stupidly complicated for a lot of non-technical reasons for a long, long time.
The advice I've given is to absolutely, and definitively denote exactly what code was AI generated keep detailed records of the history around it (including the source and date), because I guarantee that will become the crux of any future decision.
Until there's case law established, AI code is a liability.
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
-
Don't use LLM generated code in your projects yet! If for no other reason than that the legal case law is NOT ESTABLISHED YET.
I know there was the "copyright laundering" thing that went around a lot, but we actually don't know.
You'll see commenters everywhere on the internet say that "the US Supreme Court ruled that AI generated output is in the public domain". That's misinfo: they *declined to take on* a case from a lower court coming to that conclusion. The US Supreme Court hasn't yet ruled.
And this hasn't shaken out in an international setting yet either.
You may be surprised to hear: I actually think it's more dangerous and empowers centralized AI companies even more if it *isn't* the case that AI output is in the public domain (I'll follow up about that), but regardless, right now we just don't know.
But despite that, I'm STILL saying that you're putting yourself in legally dubious territory right now if you include LLM generated code, for now. We don't know yet.
@cwebber
It used to not be copyrightable. But considering nazi track the US is sliping on, the new copyright act prepared by Bezos and Thiel over a some blody drink will say:1) anything produced by humanity belong to whomever the tyrant wants, as we have it all in the LLM.
2) any royalties are going to us, see above. -
Don't use LLM generated code in your projects yet! If for no other reason than that the legal case law is NOT ESTABLISHED YET.
I know there was the "copyright laundering" thing that went around a lot, but we actually don't know.
You'll see commenters everywhere on the internet say that "the US Supreme Court ruled that AI generated output is in the public domain". That's misinfo: they *declined to take on* a case from a lower court coming to that conclusion. The US Supreme Court hasn't yet ruled.
And this hasn't shaken out in an international setting yet either.
You may be surprised to hear: I actually think it's more dangerous and empowers centralized AI companies even more if it *isn't* the case that AI output is in the public domain (I'll follow up about that), but regardless, right now we just don't know.
But despite that, I'm STILL saying that you're putting yourself in legally dubious territory right now if you include LLM generated code, for now. We don't know yet.
@cwebber In my opinion, the moment that personal information gets out in the public domain without proper consent , this becomes an actionable matter.
AI generated code must be open-source and doing this way, helps everybody to freely create.
The moment the $$$ gets in the picture, you are killing the true creativity potential of the people. -
There are only two strategies which are acceptable: either AI model output is completely illegal because of copyright stuff (this is unlikely to happen because there is now too much money behind it), or AI model output is fully in the public domain, which has its own problems but at least is an even playing field.
There won't be a middle ground that is safe. Because they want something that looks like a "middle ground", but really, all it does is lock in the big players' control over information, forever.
@cwebber did you read the copyright office opinion doc? What’s your take on what it says?
-
@cwebber I think we should resist socially and politically, for as long as there is a point, and until we figure out "benign LLMs". I'm pretty sure that's possible.
There is validity, with all kinds of different framing, to resisting the careless use of a complex and poorly understood technology as the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything.
I think the thesis at hand though, is that trying to use outdated and inadequate, poorly fit-for-context copyright law as the tool (a technology, heh) to do that is not likely to be productive. It will consume our resources without meeting our purposes.
-
There is validity, with all kinds of different framing, to resisting the careless use of a complex and poorly understood technology as the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything.
I think the thesis at hand though, is that trying to use outdated and inadequate, poorly fit-for-context copyright law as the tool (a technology, heh) to do that is not likely to be productive. It will consume our resources without meeting our purposes.
Part of the problem still being … what, exactly, IS our purpose in this melee?
-
There are only two strategies which are acceptable: either AI model output is completely illegal because of copyright stuff (this is unlikely to happen because there is now too much money behind it), or AI model output is fully in the public domain, which has its own problems but at least is an even playing field.
There won't be a middle ground that is safe. Because they want something that looks like a "middle ground", but really, all it does is lock in the big players' control over information, forever.
@cwebber The UK has a third option: the person operating the AI is the author and the output is copyrighted. Would not surprise me if the industry lobbies more jurisdictions into similar legislation.
-
@cwebber The UK has a third option: the person operating the AI is the author and the output is copyrighted. Would not surprise me if the industry lobbies more jurisdictions into similar legislation.
@MartyFouts Link to more info on UK case law?
-
Don't use LLM generated code in your projects yet! If for no other reason than that the legal case law is NOT ESTABLISHED YET.
I know there was the "copyright laundering" thing that went around a lot, but we actually don't know.
You'll see commenters everywhere on the internet say that "the US Supreme Court ruled that AI generated output is in the public domain". That's misinfo: they *declined to take on* a case from a lower court coming to that conclusion. The US Supreme Court hasn't yet ruled.
And this hasn't shaken out in an international setting yet either.
You may be surprised to hear: I actually think it's more dangerous and empowers centralized AI companies even more if it *isn't* the case that AI output is in the public domain (I'll follow up about that), but regardless, right now we just don't know.
But despite that, I'm STILL saying that you're putting yourself in legally dubious territory right now if you include LLM generated code, for now. We don't know yet.
@cwebber I'd be more concerned if someone can make a tool that can prove code came from a specific model but I don't think that's gonna happen either -
Don't use LLM generated code in your projects yet! If for no other reason than that the legal case law is NOT ESTABLISHED YET.
I know there was the "copyright laundering" thing that went around a lot, but we actually don't know.
You'll see commenters everywhere on the internet say that "the US Supreme Court ruled that AI generated output is in the public domain". That's misinfo: they *declined to take on* a case from a lower court coming to that conclusion. The US Supreme Court hasn't yet ruled.
And this hasn't shaken out in an international setting yet either.
You may be surprised to hear: I actually think it's more dangerous and empowers centralized AI companies even more if it *isn't* the case that AI output is in the public domain (I'll follow up about that), but regardless, right now we just don't know.
But despite that, I'm STILL saying that you're putting yourself in legally dubious territory right now if you include LLM generated code, for now. We don't know yet.
@cwebber I can see the future: legal concerns over LLM written code results in people rewriting code by hand to circumvent potential LLM code licence violations.
-
@MartyFouts Link to more info on UK case law?
@cwebber I don’t know of case law but the UK’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Section 9(3) states:
"In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken."
It’s language any legislature might be lobbied into inserting in their copyright statute.
