1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
What you're thinking of is this: Malus.
It's an example of Clean-room design, basically you have a LLM read the code and write a specification, which a second LLM uses to rewrite the code without access to the original.
Although since the original code was most likely included in the LLMs training data, this might not really be really true.
Why are you using the future tense when AI companies have already scraped the ever living crap out of every git forge it can access?
Updated question to clarify. Was thinking more of specific repos being laundered, not entirety
When you use LLMs to regurgitate code, you do not get ownership of the code as you did not produce it. so using llms to "launder" code doesn't accomplish anything.
From my understanding it does allow me to use the code for any purpose regardless of the license, does it not? Even if I dont own the LLM written code?
Yeah, but you also have to be aware that companies rarely care to (fully) comply with licenses to begin with, if their own code isn't publicly accessible.
Basically:
Can you explain? I’ve seen vibe coded projects with licenses. Are they not valid?
Even before getting into the copyrightability of code, at the very least, any LLM-produced parts are not copyrightable. They are public domain.
That said, if its a mix of LLM code and human code, things get pretty messy. From my understanding, if the human expanded on or modified AI code, its public domain. If they wrote a section fully independently, they absolutely own the copyright. If its an unclear mix, it would have to be proven on a case-by-case basis with the onus being on the AI user to provide solid evidence that the code copied isn't AI generated.
Sure!
But I don't expect it to change much.
I could already do that, by hand as well.
It's a bit like how there's so many different superheroes who are obviously just off-brand SuperMan or off-brand Captain America.
Minor changes to avoid intellectual property law and branding has always been an option.
And I suppose all of these are easier now with the remixing slop-o-trons.
But they weren't terribly difficult, or particularly uncommon, even before.
pretty much, with the caveat that code that has gone through an llm can't ever be licensed or copyrighted. it's basically a public domainifyer.
That doesn't seem to stop corporations assuming their software is still theirs even when an LLM wrote a lot of it.
until it goes to court. i am giddy for the day.
If that happens I will be so excited that I will stand as a tripod waiting for the results.
Now you know why Microsoft bought github.
If you mean "can I just recreate an existing copyrighted work without it being copyright-infringing", no. You're still liable if you recreate text that would be considered a derivative work. You don't have a fantastic mechanism to avoid that with existing LLMs, though I would guess that you most-likely aren't going to generate infringing code randomly.
Same thing for images or other media.
From my understanding, code is still covered by copyright. This means that copied code, even if run through an intermediary like an AI, is still copyright infringement. In the same way, even if an image generator recreates a character or movie frame, it isn't made public domain (the default state of AI Output), its just that the AI ingringed on someone else's copyright. If the code or image is then used, you can still be sued.
