Sure we could change the law. It would be a stupid change to allow individuals, organizations, and companies to completely shield themselves from the consequences of risky behaviors (more than we already do) simply by assigning all liability to a fall guy.

▲

4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

Chance-Device 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What law exactly are you suggesting needs to be changed? How is this any different from what already happens right now, today?

▲

sarchertech 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Right now it's very easy not to infringe on copyrighted code if you write the code yourself. In the vast majority of cases if you infringed it's because you did something wrong that you could have prevented (in the case where you didn't do anything wrong, inducement creation is an affirmative defense against copyright infringement).

That is not the case when using AI generated code. There is no way to use it without the chance of introducing infringing code.

Because of that if you tell a user they can use AI generated code, and they introduce infringing code, that was a foreseeable outcome of your action. In the case where you are the owner of a company, or the head of an organization that benefits from contributors using AI code, your company or organization could be liable.

▲

Chance-Device 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It’s a foreseeable outcome that humans might introduce copyrighted code into the kernel.

I think you’re looking for problems that don’t really exist here, you seem committed to an anti AI stance where none is justified.

	▲	sarchertech 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		A human has to willingly violate the law for that to happen though. There is no way for a human to use AI generated that doesn't have a chance of producing copyrighted code though. That's just expected. If you don't think this is a problem take a look at the terms of the enterprise agreements from OpenAI and Anthropic. Companies recognize this is an issue and so they were forced to add an indemnification clause, explicitly saying they'll pay for any damages resulting in infringement lawsuits.

▲

johnisgood 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Right now it's very easy not to infringe on copyrighted code if you write the code yourself.

Humans routinely produce code similar to or identical to existing copyrighted code without direct copying.

▲

sarchertech 2 hours ago | parent [-]

They don’t produce enough similar code to infringe frequently. And if they did independent creation is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement that likely doesn’t apply to LLMs since they have the demonstrated capability to produce code directly from their training set.

	▲	johnisgood 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You have shifted from "very easy not to infringe" to "don't infringe frequently", which concedes the original point that humans can and do produce infringing code without intent. On independent creation: you are conflating the tool with the user. The defense applies to whether the developer had access to the copyrighted work, not whether their tools did. A developer using an LLM did not access the training set directly, they used a synthesis tool. By your logic, any developer who has read GPL code on GitHub should lose independent creation defense because they have "demonstrated capability to produce code directly from" their memory. LLM memorization/regurgitation is a documented failure mode, not normal operation (nor typical case). Training set contamination happens, but it is rare and considered a bug. Humans also occasionally reproduce code from memory: we do not deny them independent creation defense wholesale because of that capability! In any case, the legal question is not settled, but the argument that LLM-assisted code categorically cannot qualify for independent creation defense creates a double standard that human-written code does not face.

▲

4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

bpt3 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

In this case, the "fall guy" is the person who actually introduced the code in question into the codebase.

They wouldn't be some patsy that is around just to take blame, but the actual responsible party for the issue.

▲

sarchertech 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Imagine your a factory owner and you need a chemical delivered from across the country, but the chemical is dangerous and if the tanker truck drives faster than 50 miles per hour it has a 0.001% chance per mile of exploding.

You hire an independent contractor and tell him that he can drive 60 miles per hour if he wants to but if it explodes he accepts responsibility.

He does and it explodes killing 10 people. If the family of those 10 people has evidence you created the conditions to cause the explosion in order to benefit your company, you're probably going to lose in civil court.

Linus benefits from the increase velocity of people using AI. He doesn't get to put all the liability on the people contributing.

▲

bpt3 2 hours ago | parent [-]

That is a nonsensical analogy on multiple levels, and doesn't even support your own argument.

▲

sarchertech 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Nice rebuttal.

	▲	bpt3 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Why would I put much effort into responding to a post like yours, which makes no sense and just shows that you don't understand what you're talking about?