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

Technology

83966 readers
3135 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
[–] ell1e@leminal.space 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If you had a contributor that plagiarized at a 2-10%, would you really go "eh it has to have a degree of novelty to be a problem" rather than just ban them? The different standards baffle me sometimes.

You can find various rates mentioned here: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3543507.3583199 and here: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2026/01/ai-memorization-research/685552/

[–] stsquad@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If the 2-10% is just boilerplate syscall number defines or trivial MIN/MAX macros then it's just the common way to do things.

[–] ell1e@leminal.space 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

So do you want to legally review every line by an LLM to see if it meets the fair use criterion, since you have to assume it was probably stolen? And would you do this for a known plagiarizing human contributor too...?

[–] stsquad@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

No, that's why the author asserts that with their signed-of-by. It's what I do if I use any LLM content as the basis of my patches.

[–] ell1e@leminal.space 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

So what does the signed-off-by magically solve here, that doesn't require either you or the contributor to legally review every line by an LLM? If you're not a lawyer, is your contributor going to be one?

[–] stsquad@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They don't have to be. They know what they asked the LLM to do. They know how much they adapted the output. You usually have to work to get the models to spit out significant chunks of memorised text.

[–] ell1e@leminal.space 1 points 2 days ago

I don't have much more to say other than I doubt the data backs up what you're saying at all.