Re:AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions
by ozfive on Thursday August 21, 2025 @08:24PM
(#44979801)
What will happen when company A implements algorithm X based on AI output, company B does the same and company A claims that it is proprietary code and takes company B to court?
Re:AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions
by andreasmetsala on Thursday August 21, 2025 @08:52PM
(#44979970)
What has happened when the same thing happens without AI involved?
Re:AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions
by ozfive on Friday August 22, 2025 @12:32AM
(#44981006)
Yep, it’s not a brand-new problem. I just wonder if AI is going to turbocharge the odds of these disputes popping up.
Re:AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions
by neilv on Thursday August 21, 2025 @09:18PM
(#44980120)
> Not for a dozen lines here or there, even if it could be found and identified in a massive code base. That’s like quoting a paragraph of a book in another book, non infringing.
It's potentially non-infringing in a book if you quote it in a plausible way, and properly.
If you copy&paste a paragraph from another book into yours, it's infringing, and a career-ending scandal. There's plenty of precedent on that.
Just like if you manually copied a function out of some GPL code and pasted it into your own.
Or if you had an LLM do it for you.
Not for a dozen lines here or there, even if it could be found and identified in a massive code base. That’s like quoting a paragraph of a book in another book, non infringing.
For the second half of your comment it sounds like you’re saying you got results that were too good to be AI- that’s a bit “no true Scotsman”, at least without more detail. But implementing an algorithm, even a complex one, is very much something an LLM can do. Algorithms are much better defined and scoped natural language, and LLMs do a reasonable job of translating to languages. An algorithm is a narrow subset of that task type with better defined context and syntax.