J
I draw the line with *intent*. An LLM cannot have 'intent', it is simply a stochastic choice machine picking things out of a database and then layering over algorithmic 'fixup' on the results.
Whereas a human being chooses with intent. If the human simply copy and pastes and then makes minor changes, that falls under copyright and the OS license. If the human uses similar abstractions and then writes the code themselves, with intent, then it does not violate the license.
SO MUCH WTF!
This comment on Anthropic's github repo…
> https://github.com/anthropics/claudes-c-compiler/issues/1#issuecomment-3869799573
Some more info on that '#AI coded C compiler':
> Anthropic's Claude Opus 4.6 spends $20K trying to write a C compiler. AI agents build something that mostly works but worries the project's creator. https://go.theregister.com/feed/www.theregister.com/2026/02/09/claude_opus_46_compiler/
Twenty grand? That's two months of developer time. So maybe a *little* cheaper than hiring a coder. But not hugely cheaper and that's just the AI costs. Humans were still in the loop.
And what if they had to pay for the training data? They *stole* that.
I remember the sixties. We've been here before.
Except back then we had better protest music.
