What about Group x.

You just AI generated 1 millions lines of code claiming it's for safety. Who exactly is to make any kind of security guarantees about this?

▲

tokioyoyo a day ago | parent | next [-]

What was your safety guarantee pre-rewrite? If CVE scanners and aggregators is your answer, then well, this applies to post-rewrite as well.

▲

a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

conartist6 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Don't forget the group asking really dumb pointless questions like "who legally owns the rewritten code"

▲

ethbr1 a day ago | parent [-]

Afaik, under current US law (Thaler v. Perlmutter 2025^), "the Copyright Act of 1976 requires all eligible work to be authored in the first instance by a human being".

With regards to AI-generated code, this means the copyrightability (at all, not with regard to who owns it) turns on whether or not a human was substantially involved in its creation.

Existing decisions require evidence of pretty heavy and continued human guidance to qualify.+

To wit, autonomous agent created code (prompt -> machine churns for hours -> output) is explicitly not eligible for copyright.

Functionally, this is a double-edged sword.

On the one hand, it means anything coded with autonomous agents by Meta, Google, et al. can be legally reused if it leaks (because no one could hold copyright on it).

On the other hand, it leaves copy-left open source licenses in a weird place. If you convert open source (even MIT/BSD-style) code into something else with an autonomous coding agent... the result has no copyright (nor can ever in the US).

In this instance, Bun was MIT-licensed, no? Then it was shoved mostly-autonomously through an LLM for the port.

Now Bun-Rust is technically still MIT licensed, but if push came to shove it seems like US law's current position is that Bun-Rust would now have no copyright license (because the manner in which it was developed renders it ineligible for copyright).

That's on the copyright side.

On the infringing usage side (i.e. whether you were entitled to shove a copyrighted work into a coding agent to produce something)... that's still TBD.

^ https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2025/03/23-523...

+ https://garrettham.com/ai-generated-works-copyright/

▲

eventhorizon77 21 hours ago | parent [-]

Couldn't it be argued that Bun-Rust is still MIT licensed, because the old implementation was "in the first instance" authored by a human? All the machine did was translate it.

I think it's the "infringing usage" question that is more interesting. If the LLM trained on GPL-derived code, what does that mean for the end result?

▲

simonw 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"If the LLM trained on GPL-derived code, what does that mean for the end result?"

Either it means nothing at all, or it means that a substantial portion of the code produced at some of the world's most valuable companies over the last two and a half years is GPL.

▲

conartist6 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah you could argue that, but it's a messy argument. I'm wiling to imagine that they hadn't used AI to do the rewrite to Rust. It wouldn't have been all that hard to do with plain old syntax tree transformation (my expertise). The trickier question for me is the ownership at the boundary where prompts were turned into Zig code. That is not a process that could have been done with syntax tree transformation: creative freedom was given to the model as to how to do the work at that stage, and so that is the stage at which I'm least sure they could legally defend their claim to ownership.

	▲	ethbr1 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I feel like that's a lot of LLM use in a nutshell: sure, there's a more surgical scalpel available, but isn't it so much easier just to fling prompts at a magic box?