3 ms·

...and makes your code public domain (you just admitted here that you're using it)- if anyone accesses app developed by you, they can use it freely without any

by xlii 3y ago

...and makes your code public domain (you just admitted here that you're using it)- if anyone accesses app developed by you, they can use it freely without any license. Worst thing - you're feeding potentially not your code into GPT. That'd be a fireable offense to me (and a very expensive lawsuit for at least couple places I know). Not an issue if you're lone wolf, though. It's a dystopian thought, but I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft (which provides such services), when it knows you're using service to create public domain code, could just copy it one-to-one, because hey - free lunch, right?

ynx 3y ago
Even if it did - the current copyright regime is already so extortionate as to be dystopian, so is it truly a loss?
DonHopkins 3y ago
>...and makes your code public domain Just what is your definition of "public domain"?
- horsawlarway 3y ago
  Not anything that matches legal reality. That's for sure.
iamflimflam1 3y ago
Can you explain your reasoning behind this statement? Why does it make you code “public domain”? And why can anyone use an app developed by you “freely without any license”? Not saying you are wrong, but sweeping claims need some kind of evidence.
- unnah 3y ago
  It's most likely in reference to the recent US copyright office guidance on non-copyrightability of generative AI output: https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf There's already been some discussion here on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35191206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35191206 In any case, no one is going to deploy purely AI-generated code in the near future, which would be non-copyrightable. In practice any generated code will be edited by the human developer, and it doesn't take that much creative human input to make the result copyrightable.
  - xlii 3y ago
    That's a very optimistic take, though. Derivative works aren't as easily re-copyrightable. And we're considering context where programmer copy-pasted code from GPT, so probably it won't be rewritten in most chunks. There's also other part - if there's proof that partial code (even like 10%) is made using non-copyrightable solution it would be very hard to prove that the rest 90% is. Until the laws address those issues using any code from generator is a huge liability.
- xlii 3y ago
  See sibling poster for general information. There's also matter of "injecting" copyleft code from generator into your own codebase [1], e.g. GPL3 or AGPL. Few companies are blocking their employees from using it [2] quoting various reasons, and I know some that aren't big enough to matter in the news, but have done it too. [1]: https://codeium.com/blog/copilot-trains-on-gpl-codeium-does-not https://codeium.com/blog/copilot-trains-on-gpl-codeium-does-... [2]: https://www.hr-brew.com/stories/2023/05/11/these-companies-have-banned-chatgpt-in-the-office https://www.hr-brew.com/stories/2023/05/11/these-companies-h...
JohnFen 3y ago
> if anyone accesses app developed by you, they can use it freely without any license. This is simply incorrect on every level, starting with the fact that (in the US, anyway), you can't place your works in the public domain even if you wanted to.
- nmeagent 3y ago
  That's not true in at least one case: if you work for the US federal government, all of your works are automatically in the public domain. Of course, they may also be barred from disclosure for other reasons. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_the_federal_government_of_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by...
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    You're correct, that's the one exception. Although you could argue that it's not really an exception -- it's that when you're producing IP in the course of your employment, your employer owns the copyright. And if you work for the federal government, your employer is the American people, so in a real sense we collectively hold the copyright. Which is the same as being in the public domain.

by xlii 3y ago

ynx 3y ago

Even if it did - the current copyright regime is already so extortionate as to be dystopian, so is it truly a loss?

DonHopkins 3y ago

>...and makes your code public domain Just what is your definition of "public domain"?

horsawlarway 3y ago
Not anything that matches legal reality. That's for sure.

iamflimflam1 3y ago

Can you explain your reasoning behind this statement? Why does it make you code “public domain”? And why can anyone use an app developed by you “freely without any license”? Not saying you are wrong, but sweeping claims need some kind of evidence.

unnah 3y ago
It's most likely in reference to the recent US copyright office guidance on non-copyrightability of generative AI output: https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf There's already been some discussion here on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35191206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35191206 In any case, no one is going to deploy purely AI-generated code in the near future, which would be non-copyrightable. In practice any generated code will be edited by the human developer, and it doesn't take that much creative human input to make the result copyrightable.
- xlii 3y ago
  That's a very optimistic take, though. Derivative works aren't as easily re-copyrightable. And we're considering context where programmer copy-pasted code from GPT, so probably it won't be rewritten in most chunks. There's also other part - if there's proof that partial code (even like 10%) is made using non-copyrightable solution it would be very hard to prove that the rest 90% is. Until the laws address those issues using any code from generator is a huge liability.
xlii 3y ago
See sibling poster for general information. There's also matter of "injecting" copyleft code from generator into your own codebase [1], e.g. GPL3 or AGPL. Few companies are blocking their employees from using it [2] quoting various reasons, and I know some that aren't big enough to matter in the news, but have done it too. [1]: https://codeium.com/blog/copilot-trains-on-gpl-codeium-does-not https://codeium.com/blog/copilot-trains-on-gpl-codeium-does-... [2]: https://www.hr-brew.com/stories/2023/05/11/these-companies-have-banned-chatgpt-in-the-office https://www.hr-brew.com/stories/2023/05/11/these-companies-h...

JohnFen 3y ago

> if anyone accesses app developed by you, they can use it freely without any license. This is simply incorrect on every level, starting with the fact that (in the US, anyway), you can't place your works in the public domain even if you wanted to.

nmeagent 3y ago
That's not true in at least one case: if you work for the US federal government, all of your works are automatically in the public domain. Of course, they may also be barred from disclosure for other reasons. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_the_federal_government_of_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by...
- JohnFen 3y ago
  You're correct, that's the one exception. Although you could argue that it's not really an exception -- it's that when you're producing IP in the course of your employment, your employer owns the copyright. And if you work for the federal government, your employer is the American people, so in a real sense we collectively hold the copyright. Which is the same as being in the public domain.