4 ms·

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.

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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo ago
        No code besides the header was copied so I am asking what is so problematic about it?
        PunchyHamster 11mo ago
        that was already explained before
  - nsagent 11mo ago
    Oh wow. That's just egregious. Considering the widespread use of Auth0, I'm surprised this isn't a bigger story.
- spookie 11mo ago
  None of that matters. The header is there, in writing, and discussed in the PR. It is acknowledged by both parties and the author gives a clumsy response for its existence. The PR is simply tainted by this alone, not to mention other pain points. You may not consider this problematic. But maintainers of this project sure do, given this was one of the immediate concerns of theirs.
  - joelreymont 11mo ago
    OxCaml is a fork of OCaml, they have the same license. I wasn't able to find any chunks of code copied wholesale from OxCaml which already has a DWARF implementation. All that code wasn't written by Mark, AI just decided to paste his copyright all over.
  - menaerus 11mo ago
    It matters because it completely weakens their point of stance and make them look unreasonable. Header is irrelevant since it isn't copyright infringement, and FWIW when it has been corrected (in the MR), then they decided that the MR is too complex for them and closed the whole issue. Ridiculous.
    - biorach 11mo ago
      An incorrect copyright header is a major red flag for non technical reasons. If you think it is an irrelevant minor matter then you do not undesirable several very important social and legal aspects of the issue.
      - menaerus 11mo ago
        Social maybe yes what legal aspects? Everybody keeps repeating that but there is no copyright infringement. Maybe you can point me to one? I understand that people are uncomfortable with this, I am likely too, but objectively looking there's technically nothing wrong or different to what humans already do.
        11mo ago

menaerus 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo ago
      No code besides the header was copied so I am asking what is so problematic about it?
      - PunchyHamster 11mo ago
        that was already explained before
- nsagent 11mo ago
  Oh wow. That's just egregious. Considering the widespread use of Auth0, I'm surprised this isn't a bigger story.
spookie 11mo ago
None of that matters. The header is there, in writing, and discussed in the PR. It is acknowledged by both parties and the author gives a clumsy response for its existence. The PR is simply tainted by this alone, not to mention other pain points. You may not consider this problematic. But maintainers of this project sure do, given this was one of the immediate concerns of theirs.
- joelreymont 11mo ago
  OxCaml is a fork of OCaml, they have the same license. I wasn't able to find any chunks of code copied wholesale from OxCaml which already has a DWARF implementation. All that code wasn't written by Mark, AI just decided to paste his copyright all over.
- menaerus 11mo ago
  It matters because it completely weakens their point of stance and make them look unreasonable. Header is irrelevant since it isn't copyright infringement, and FWIW when it has been corrected (in the MR), then they decided that the MR is too complex for them and closed the whole issue. Ridiculous.
  - biorach 11mo ago
    An incorrect copyright header is a major red flag for non technical reasons. If you think it is an irrelevant minor matter then you do not undesirable several very important social and legal aspects of the issue.
    - menaerus 11mo ago
      Social maybe yes what legal aspects? Everybody keeps repeating that but there is no copyright infringement. Maybe you can point me to one? I understand that people are uncomfortable with this, I am likely too, but objectively looking there's technically nothing wrong or different to what humans already do.
      - 11mo ago