5 ms·

But the responsible party is still the human who added the code. Not the tool that helped do so.

sarchertech 6mo ago
In a court case the responsibility party very well could be the Linux foundation because this is a foreseeable consequence of allowing AI contributions. There’s no reasonable way for a human to make such a guarantee while using AI generated code.
- Chance-Device 6mo ago
  It’s not about the mechanism: responsibility is a social construct, it works the way people say that it works. If we all agree that a human can agree to bear the responsibility for AI outputs, and face any consequences resulting from those outputs, then that’s the whole shebang.
  - sarchertech 6mo ago
    Sure we could change the law. It would be a stupid change to allow individuals, organizations, and companies to completely shield themselves from the consequences of risky behaviors (more than we already do) simply by assigning all liability to a fall guy.
    - bpt3 6mo ago
      In this case, the "fall guy" is the person who actually introduced the code in question into the codebase. They wouldn't be some patsy that is around just to take blame, but the actual responsible party for the issue.
      - sarchertech 6mo ago
        Imagine your a factory owner and you need a chemical delivered from across the country, but the chemical is dangerous and if the tanker truck drives faster than 50 miles per hour it has a 0.001% chance per mile of exploding. You hire an independent contractor and tell him that he can drive 60 miles per hour if he wants to but if it explodes he accepts responsibility. He does and it explodes killing 10 people. If the family of those 10 people has evidence you created the conditions to cause the explosion in order to benefit your company, you're probably going to lose in civil court. Linus benefits from the increase velocity of people using AI. He doesn't get to put all the liability on the people contributing.
        bpt3 6mo ago
        That is a nonsensical analogy on multiple levels, and doesn't even support your own argument.
        sarchertech 6mo ago
        Nice rebuttal.
        bpt3 6mo ago
        Why would I put much effort into responding to a post like yours, which makes no sense and just shows that you don't understand what you're talking about?
        sarchertech 6mo ago
        Why would you put any effort into it at all?
        raincole 6mo ago
        Cool analogy! Which has nothing to do with the topic in hand.
        sarchertech 6mo ago
        Want to bring something meaningful to the conversation?
    - Chance-Device 6mo ago
      What law exactly are you suggesting needs to be changed? How is this any different from what already happens right now, today?
      - sarchertech 6mo ago
        Right now it's very easy not to infringe on copyrighted code if you write the code yourself. In the vast majority of cases if you infringed it's because you did something wrong that you could have prevented (in the case where you didn't do anything wrong, inducement creation is an affirmative defense against copyright infringement). That is not the case when using AI generated code. There is no way to use it without the chance of introducing infringing code. Because of that if you tell a user they can use AI generated code, and they introduce infringing code, that was a foreseeable outcome of your action. In the case where you are the owner of a company, or the head of an organization that benefits from contributors using AI code, your company or organization could be liable.
        Chance-Device 6mo ago
        It’s a foreseeable outcome that humans might introduce copyrighted code into the kernel. I think you’re looking for problems that don’t really exist here, you seem committed to an anti AI stance where none is justified.
        sarchertech 6mo ago
        A human has to willingly violate the law for that to happen though. There is no way for a human to use AI generated that doesn't have a chance of producing copyrighted code though. That's just expected. If you don't think this is a problem take a look at the terms of the enterprise agreements from OpenAI and Anthropic. Companies recognize this is an issue and so they were forced to add an indemnification clause, explicitly saying they'll pay for any damages resulting in infringement lawsuits.
        deleted 6mo ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
  - lo_zamoyski 6mo ago
    Responsibility is an objective fact, not just some arbitrary social convention. What we can agree or disagree about is where it rests, but that's a matter of inference, an inference can be more or less correct. We might assign certain people certain responsibilities before the fact, but that's to charge them with the care of some good, not to blame them for things before they were charged with their care.
- bitwize 6mo ago
  Because contributions to Linux are meticulously attributed to, and remain property of, their authors, those authors bear ultimate responsibility. If Fred Foobar sends patches to the kernel that, as it turns out, contain copyrighted code, then provided upstream maintainers did reasonable due diligence the court will go after Fred Foobar for damages, and quite likely demand that the kernel organization no longer distribute copies of the kernel with Fred's code in it.
  - sarchertech 6mo ago
    Anyone distributing infringing material can be liable, and it’s unlikely that this technicality will actually would shield anyone. Anyone who thinks they have a strong infringement case isn’t going to stop at the guy who authored the code, they’re going to go after anyone with deep pockets with a good chance of winning.
    - Marha01 6mo ago
      > Anyone distributing infringing material can be liable There is still the "mens rea" principle. If you distribute infringing material unknowingly, it would very likely not result in any penalties.
      - sarchertech 6mo ago
        Copyright is strict liability. There’s no mens rea required.
Cytobit 6mo ago
That's not going to shield the Linux organization.
- cxr 6mo ago
  A DCO bearing a claim of original authorship (or assertion of other permitted use) isn't going to shield them entirely, but it can mitigate liability and damages.
  - sarchertech 6mo ago
    Can it though? As far as I know this hasn’t been tested.
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
aargh_aargh 6mo ago
The practical concern of Linux developers regarding responsibility is not being able to ban the author, it's that the author should take ongoing care for his contribution.

In a court case the responsibility party very well could be the Linux foundation because this is a foreseeable consequence of allowing AI contributions. There’s no reasonable way for a human to make such a guarantee while using AI generated code.

Chance-Device 6mo ago
It’s not about the mechanism: responsibility is a social construct, it works the way people say that it works. If we all agree that a human can agree to bear the responsibility for AI outputs, and face any consequences resulting from those outputs, then that’s the whole shebang.
- sarchertech 6mo ago
  Sure we could change the law. It would be a stupid change to allow individuals, organizations, and companies to completely shield themselves from the consequences of risky behaviors (more than we already do) simply by assigning all liability to a fall guy.
  - bpt3 6mo ago
    In this case, the "fall guy" is the person who actually introduced the code in question into the codebase. They wouldn't be some patsy that is around just to take blame, but the actual responsible party for the issue.
    - sarchertech 6mo ago
      Imagine your a factory owner and you need a chemical delivered from across the country, but the chemical is dangerous and if the tanker truck drives faster than 50 miles per hour it has a 0.001% chance per mile of exploding. You hire an independent contractor and tell him that he can drive 60 miles per hour if he wants to but if it explodes he accepts responsibility. He does and it explodes killing 10 people. If the family of those 10 people has evidence you created the conditions to cause the explosion in order to benefit your company, you're probably going to lose in civil court. Linus benefits from the increase velocity of people using AI. He doesn't get to put all the liability on the people contributing.
      - bpt3 6mo ago
        That is a nonsensical analogy on multiple levels, and doesn't even support your own argument.
        sarchertech 6mo ago
        Nice rebuttal.
        bpt3 6mo ago
        Why would I put much effort into responding to a post like yours, which makes no sense and just shows that you don't understand what you're talking about?
        sarchertech 6mo ago
        Why would you put any effort into it at all?
      - raincole 6mo ago
        Cool analogy! Which has nothing to do with the topic in hand.
        sarchertech 6mo ago
        Want to bring something meaningful to the conversation?
  - Chance-Device 6mo ago
    What law exactly are you suggesting needs to be changed? How is this any different from what already happens right now, today?
    - sarchertech 6mo ago
      Right now it's very easy not to infringe on copyrighted code if you write the code yourself. In the vast majority of cases if you infringed it's because you did something wrong that you could have prevented (in the case where you didn't do anything wrong, inducement creation is an affirmative defense against copyright infringement). That is not the case when using AI generated code. There is no way to use it without the chance of introducing infringing code. Because of that if you tell a user they can use AI generated code, and they introduce infringing code, that was a foreseeable outcome of your action. In the case where you are the owner of a company, or the head of an organization that benefits from contributors using AI code, your company or organization could be liable.
      - Chance-Device 6mo ago
        It’s a foreseeable outcome that humans might introduce copyrighted code into the kernel. I think you’re looking for problems that don’t really exist here, you seem committed to an anti AI stance where none is justified.
        sarchertech 6mo ago
        A human has to willingly violate the law for that to happen though. There is no way for a human to use AI generated that doesn't have a chance of producing copyrighted code though. That's just expected. If you don't think this is a problem take a look at the terms of the enterprise agreements from OpenAI and Anthropic. Companies recognize this is an issue and so they were forced to add an indemnification clause, explicitly saying they'll pay for any damages resulting in infringement lawsuits.
      - deleted 6mo ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
- lo_zamoyski 6mo ago
  Responsibility is an objective fact, not just some arbitrary social convention. What we can agree or disagree about is where it rests, but that's a matter of inference, an inference can be more or less correct. We might assign certain people certain responsibilities before the fact, but that's to charge them with the care of some good, not to blame them for things before they were charged with their care.
bitwize 6mo ago
Because contributions to Linux are meticulously attributed to, and remain property of, their authors, those authors bear ultimate responsibility. If Fred Foobar sends patches to the kernel that, as it turns out, contain copyrighted code, then provided upstream maintainers did reasonable due diligence the court will go after Fred Foobar for damages, and quite likely demand that the kernel organization no longer distribute copies of the kernel with Fred's code in it.
- sarchertech 6mo ago
  Anyone distributing infringing material can be liable, and it’s unlikely that this technicality will actually would shield anyone. Anyone who thinks they have a strong infringement case isn’t going to stop at the guy who authored the code, they’re going to go after anyone with deep pockets with a good chance of winning.
  - Marha01 6mo ago
    > Anyone distributing infringing material can be liable There is still the "mens rea" principle. If you distribute infringing material unknowingly, it would very likely not result in any penalties.
    - sarchertech 6mo ago
      Copyright is strict liability. There’s no mens rea required.

Cytobit 6mo ago

That's not going to shield the Linux organization.

cxr 6mo ago
A DCO bearing a claim of original authorship (or assertion of other permitted use) isn't going to shield them entirely, but it can mitigate liability and damages.
- sarchertech 6mo ago
  Can it though? As far as I know this hasn’t been tested.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]

aargh_aargh 6mo ago

The practical concern of Linux developers regarding responsibility is not being able to ban the author, it's that the author should take ongoing care for his contribution.