| ▲ | bpodgursky 2 hours ago |
| No I'm sure they are just paranoid about license rights. |
|
| ▲ | sandeepkd 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I believe thats the real reason, its not just Oracle, it would eventually be everyone in this kind of boat. No business would publicly use (or claim) AI to write code with recent verdict over the IP rights of AI generated code. It would be interesting to see how this effects the copyleft Licences with contributors are using AI for the PRs |
| |
| ▲ | mhitza 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > AI to write code with recent verdict over the IP rights of AI generated code. Which recent verdict? > It would be interesting to see how this effects the copyleft Licences with contributors are using AI for the PRs I know Linux and GCC have been diligent about tagging and tracking LLM based contributions. In the worst case they can chuck it all out and handwrite it back. | | |
| ▲ | sandeepkd an hour ago | parent [-] | | https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10922 There is this old one around contents like images and all, the ripple affect is pretty much everywhere. Its sort of coupled with the recent penalty of $1.5B on Anthropic. The catch 22 is that some portion of the LLM training data can be classified as IP theft. Even though Anthropic has been fined the data still exists and can be used by LLM to generate code for you. So if you are claiming something as an IP and it has stolen part in it then it leaves you in a hard place. Language translations may save you in some cases, though the whole definition of cleanroom has been in debate recently too where people are trying to rewrite opensource/famous libraries in different language and claiming IP rights over them. | | |
| ▲ | robocat an hour ago | parent [-] | | > penalty of $1.5B on Anthropic Settlement not penalty. Anthropic will have judged the benefits of the settlement, not just the headline cost. It could have been a strategic move by Anthropic: we can't know without information we don't have. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49014389 1.5B looks like ~2% of funding/income. | | |
| ▲ | sandeepkd 20 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I understand the legal terminology is different, however at the same time I am not entirely sure if the optics change by calling it Settlement or Penalty. There is only one party paying money here and they are not getting any service after paying this money so its indeed a penalty for what they did before. Any article describing the details has both the key words, its a legal settlement where Anthropic is penalized. Secondly the future is still not here yet, the people who came forward to sue are mostly in the category of book publishers/authors. The tech companies are are not actively searching for copyright thefts as of yet, however I am sure its just a matter of time when the big blobs of codes get rediscovered specially in case of any publicly visible code |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | dan_q an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This constitutes an admission on the part of one of the largest AI investors that AI generated/"assisted" code is inadequate (in part) because it is produced in flagrant violation of license rights. |
|
| ▲ | eddieroger 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I don't know, Oracle historically has a very chill, almost laissez-faire point of view on licensing. |
| |
