3 ms·

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

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...

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...