5 ms·

It's clear Claude adapted code directly from the OxCaml implementation (the PR author said he pointed Claude at that code [1] and then provides a ChatGPT analys

by nsagent 11mo ago

It's clear Claude adapted code directly from the OxCaml implementation (the PR author said he pointed Claude at that code [1] and then provides a ChatGPT analysis [2] that really highlights the plagiarism, but ultimately comes to the conclusion that it isn't plagiarized). Either that highlights someone who is incompetent or they are willfully being blasé. Neither bodes well for contributing code while respecting copyright (though mixing and matching code on your own private repo that isn't distributed in source or binary form seems reasonable to me). [1]: https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/pull/14369#issuecomment-3557357958 https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/pull/14369#issuecomment-35573... [2]: https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/pull/14369#issuecomment-3556624486 https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/pull/14369#issuecomment-35566...

menaerus 10mo ago
Sorry, this is just ridicilous and shows how people fragile really are. This whole topic and whole MR as well. I am routinely looking into the folly implementation, sometimes into the libstdc++, sometimes into libc++, sometimes into boost or abseil etc. to find inspiration for problems that I tackle in other codebases. By the same standards, this should also be plagiarism, no? I manufacture new ideas by compiling existing knowledge from elsewhere. Literally every engineer in the world does the same. Why is AI any different?
- meheleventyone 10mo ago
  Perhaps because the AI assigned copyright in the files to the author of the library it copied from and the person prompting it told it to look at that library. Without even getting into the comedy AI generated apologia to go with it which makes it look worse rather than better. From a pragmatic viewpoint as an engineer you assign the IP you create over to the company you work for so plagarism has real world potential to lose you your job at best. There's a difference between taking inspiration from something unrelated "oh this is a neat algorithmic approach to solving this class of problems" to "I need to implement this specific feature and it exists in this library so I'll lift it nearly verbatim".
  - menaerus 10mo ago
    Can you give an example what exactly was copied? I ask because I took a look into MR and original repo, and the conclusion is that the tool only copy-pasted the copyright header but not the code. So I am still wondering - what's wrong with that (it's a silly mistake even a human can make), and where is the copyright infringement everyone is talking about?
    - DrammBA 10mo ago
      > copy-past[ing] the copyright header but not the code [is] a silly mistake even a human can make Do you mind showing me some examples of that? That seems so implausible to me Just for reference, here's another example of AI adding phantom contributors and the human just ignoring it or not even noticing: https://github.com/auth0/nextjs-auth0/issues/2432 https://github.com/auth0/nextjs-auth0/issues/2432
      - menaerus 10mo ago
        > Do you mind showing me some examples of that? That seems so implausible to me What's so special about it that I need to show you the example?
        kqr 10mo ago
        You are claiming humans copy-and-paste copyright headers without copying the corresponding code. To prove you're correct, you only need to show one (or a few) examples of it happening. To prove you incorrect, someone would have to go through all code in existence to show the absence of the phenomenon. Hence the burden of proof is on you.
        menaerus 10mo ago
        No code besides the header was copied so I am asking what is so problematic about it?
        10mo ago
- pjmlp 10mo ago
  Yes? That is why some people are forbidden to contribute to projects if their eyes have read projects with incompatible licenses, in case people go to copyright court.
  - menaerus 10mo ago
    Yes what? Both oxcaml and ocaml have compatible LGPL licenses so I didn't get your argument. But even if that hadn't been the case, what exactly would be the problem? Are you saying that I cannot learn from a copyrighted book written by some respected and known author, and then apply that knowledge elsewhere because I would be risking to be sued for copyright infringement?
    - pjmlp 10mo ago
      Depends on the license of the original material, which is why they tend to have a list of allowed use cases for copying content. Naturally there are very flexible ones, very draconian ones, and those in the middle. Most people get away with them, because it isn't like everyone is taking others to copyright court sessions every single day, unless there are millions at play.
    - biorach 10mo ago
      The wider point is that copyright headers are a very important detail and that a) the AI got it wrong b) you did not notice c) you have not taken on board the fact that it is important despite being told several times and have dismissed the issue as unimportant Which raises the question how many other important incorrect details are buried in the 13k lines of code that you are unaware of and unable to recognise the significance of? And how much mantainer time would you waste being dismissive of the issues? People have taken the copyright header as indicative of wider problems in the code.
      - menaerus 10mo ago
        Yes, please then find those for now imaginative issues and drill through them? Sorry, but I haven't seen anyone in that MR calling out for technical deficiencies so this is just crying out loud in a public for no concrete reasons. It's the same as if your colleague sitting next to you would not allow the MR to be merged for various political and not technical reasons - this is exactly what is happening here.
joelreymont 10mo ago
The key is that AI adapted, not stole. It's actually capable of reasoning and generating derivative code and not just copying stuff wholesale. See examples at the bottom of my post: https://joel.id/ai-will-write-your-next-compiler/ https://joel.id/ai-will-write-your-next-compiler/
- noticingdecline 10mo ago
  [dead]

by nsagent 11mo ago

menaerus 10mo ago

Sorry, this is just ridicilous and shows how people fragile really are. This whole topic and whole MR as well. I am routinely looking into the folly implementation, sometimes into the libstdc++, sometimes into libc++, sometimes into boost or abseil etc. to find inspiration for problems that I tackle in other codebases. By the same standards, this should also be plagiarism, no? I manufacture new ideas by compiling existing knowledge from elsewhere. Literally every engineer in the world does the same. Why is AI any different?

meheleventyone 10mo ago
Perhaps because the AI assigned copyright in the files to the author of the library it copied from and the person prompting it told it to look at that library. Without even getting into the comedy AI generated apologia to go with it which makes it look worse rather than better. From a pragmatic viewpoint as an engineer you assign the IP you create over to the company you work for so plagarism has real world potential to lose you your job at best. There's a difference between taking inspiration from something unrelated "oh this is a neat algorithmic approach to solving this class of problems" to "I need to implement this specific feature and it exists in this library so I'll lift it nearly verbatim".
- menaerus 10mo ago
  Can you give an example what exactly was copied? I ask because I took a look into MR and original repo, and the conclusion is that the tool only copy-pasted the copyright header but not the code. So I am still wondering - what's wrong with that (it's a silly mistake even a human can make), and where is the copyright infringement everyone is talking about?
  - DrammBA 10mo ago
    > copy-past[ing] the copyright header but not the code [is] a silly mistake even a human can make Do you mind showing me some examples of that? That seems so implausible to me Just for reference, here's another example of AI adding phantom contributors and the human just ignoring it or not even noticing: https://github.com/auth0/nextjs-auth0/issues/2432 https://github.com/auth0/nextjs-auth0/issues/2432
    - menaerus 10mo ago
      > Do you mind showing me some examples of that? That seems so implausible to me What's so special about it that I need to show you the example?
      - kqr 10mo ago
        You are claiming humans copy-and-paste copyright headers without copying the corresponding code. To prove you're correct, you only need to show one (or a few) examples of it happening. To prove you incorrect, someone would have to go through all code in existence to show the absence of the phenomenon. Hence the burden of proof is on you.
        menaerus 10mo ago
        No code besides the header was copied so I am asking what is so problematic about it?
        10mo ago
pjmlp 10mo ago
Yes? That is why some people are forbidden to contribute to projects if their eyes have read projects with incompatible licenses, in case people go to copyright court.
- menaerus 10mo ago
  Yes what? Both oxcaml and ocaml have compatible LGPL licenses so I didn't get your argument. But even if that hadn't been the case, what exactly would be the problem? Are you saying that I cannot learn from a copyrighted book written by some respected and known author, and then apply that knowledge elsewhere because I would be risking to be sued for copyright infringement?
  - pjmlp 10mo ago
    Depends on the license of the original material, which is why they tend to have a list of allowed use cases for copying content. Naturally there are very flexible ones, very draconian ones, and those in the middle. Most people get away with them, because it isn't like everyone is taking others to copyright court sessions every single day, unless there are millions at play.
  - biorach 10mo ago
    The wider point is that copyright headers are a very important detail and that a) the AI got it wrong b) you did not notice c) you have not taken on board the fact that it is important despite being told several times and have dismissed the issue as unimportant Which raises the question how many other important incorrect details are buried in the 13k lines of code that you are unaware of and unable to recognise the significance of? And how much mantainer time would you waste being dismissive of the issues? People have taken the copyright header as indicative of wider problems in the code.
    - menaerus 10mo ago
      Yes, please then find those for now imaginative issues and drill through them? Sorry, but I haven't seen anyone in that MR calling out for technical deficiencies so this is just crying out loud in a public for no concrete reasons. It's the same as if your colleague sitting next to you would not allow the MR to be merged for various political and not technical reasons - this is exactly what is happening here.

joelreymont 10mo ago

The key is that AI adapted, not stole. It's actually capable of reasoning and generating derivative code and not just copying stuff wholesale. See examples at the bottom of my post: https://joel.id/ai-will-write-your-next-compiler/ https://joel.id/ai-will-write-your-next-compiler/

noticingdecline 10mo ago
[dead]