this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2026
687 points (95.3% liked)

Technology

83966 readers
5672 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
687
Linux lays down the law on AI-generated code, says yes to Copilot, no to AI slop, and humans take the fall for mistakes — after months of fierce debate, Torvalds and maintainers come to an agreement (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 1 week ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/technology@lemmy.world
298 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I was responding specifically to this part

But if an LLM regurgitates closed-source code from its training data, I just can't see any way how that would be the developer's fault...

showing what would happen when the llm regurgitates open source code into close source projects.

Sorry if you didn't like that.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 6 days ago

But you flipped the situation, making it an entirely different discussion, and then you went on as if you thought my previous point was still supposed to apply to the new topic that you introduced.

It's not that I don't like it; we can talk about the issues with training commercial LLMs on GPL code. It was just an unannounced change of topic. Like you were trying to score points, so you brought up something irrelevant to pretend I'm arguing against, which I wasn't.

Corporations have been able to steal open-source code without the help of AI, and the same issues arise due to lack of transparency. It's a problem, sure, but it wasn't the problem we were discussing. And you acting like I'm somehow arguing against it being a problem is a strawman, because it's not what the thing I said was in reference to.