Can't speak for others but I'm just tired of hearing far-fetched copyright concerns that mask the real motivation (ideological opposition to LLMs).

▲

overgard 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I don't think the concerns are far fetched at all. Look at how image models spit out copyrighted stuff all the time. Midjourney has a bizarre EULA clause that if you use it to generate images that violate copyright and _they_ get sued, they can hold you liable downstream. Which is wild to me -- just don't train on things you don't own and this is not a problem!

In images it's much more _obvious_, but I think code is very likely to have similar problems. Like, websites that an LLM spits out are often very very similar. It wouldn't be shocking to me if some of the code in the training set was trained off GPL code, and there are small GPL violations all over the place.

▲

graemep an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The stance may be reasonable, but the reasoning is not clear to me and the limit does sesm to suggest copyright concerns that are, as you say, far fetched.

▲

leonidasv 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They still allow LLM-generated code for tests, LLM-assisted debugging, bug discovery and code reviews. It doesn't seem so.

▲

olalonde 7 hours ago | parent [-]

At the same time, they would be somewhat forced to concede those use cases if they wanted to stick to the copyright story. Maybe you're right but I remain skeptical.

	▲	amusingimpala75 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Yes but if the concern is being forced to remove code in the case of copyright violation it is trivial to remove code that is a test case as opposed to a feature of the compiler

▲

randusername 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's far-fetched that the GNU project is authentically concerned about software licensing?

▲

olalonde 6 hours ago | parent [-]

No, it's far-fetched to believe GCC would get sued for incorporating LLM-generated code.

	▲	overgard 41 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The risk might be small -- but is it a risk they need to take at all? We're talking about a very mature project here that more or less needs to move at the speed of standards bodies, which is basically glacial. Being the first to implement C++ 29 probably isn't that big of a deal. People do not upgrade their compilers daily, shit, most projects stay on the same version for years, so optimizing for velocity seems like a bad idea here.
	▲	Ekaros 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Yeah, I would question that part. On other hand I would not as them risk being able to sue worth it. Which use of LLMs could very well result in.
	▲	gspr an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I think you know that well-known, highly visible entities usually set their legal bar a bit higher than "I'm sure we won't be sued over this".
	▲	an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]