14 ms·
Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK
- TacticalCoder 2mo agoSo Java, which powers a sizeable chunk of the real-world since two decades now, without needing the help of LLMish sloppy-pasta, is going to continue to power the Real World [TM] with its language and JVM that have been created with tens of millions of human man-hours without LLMish sloppy-pasta? I'm shocked. I'm not only shocked: I also see there a delicious irony in the countless of LLMish sloppy-pasta code that's now running and going to be run on man-made JVMs.
- msdz 2mo ago> countless of LLMish sloppy-pasta code that's now running and going to be run on man-made JVMs. Don’t worry, I think most LLMs, when starting a greenfield codebase, don’t reach for Java, so it may be a smaller amount of code affected than you feared.
- dboreham 2mo agoIf you asked the LLM to create an Android app it probably would.
- CuriouslyC 2mo agoKotlin my dude, unless you hate yourself.
- msdz 2mo agoInteresting idea, so I had to check! Prompt: “Top language pick for an Android app? Respond with only the language.” Responses (admittedly via the aichat CLI, not an agent harness; and temp=0): Kimi K3: Kotlin GPT 5.6 Sol: Kotlin Claude Fable 5: Kotlin DeepSeek v4 Flash 0731: Kotlin Are there any other “inherently” heavily JVM-biased domains? I think even in Minecraft game mods Kotlin is possible nowadays…
- asadotzler 2mo agoCloser to three decades than two.
- asdev 2mo agoWould Cursor tab assisted code be considered AI generated? I feel like that was the epitome of AI assisted but quality code
- rootnod3 2mo agoYes. AI involved.
- cautiouscat 2mo agoYeah, they kind of hit on this in their main post: > If I use a generative AI tool to create 100 lines of code, and then edit ten of those lines myself, may I contribute the result? > No. Your contribution would still include, in part, AI-generated code.
- champagnepapi 2mo ago> I feel like that was the epitome of AI assisted but quality code I totally agree with you on this! The engineer is still actively engaging while getting the performance gains of not having to type out functions. The Engineer is still in charge vs agentic "engineering" a model + harness can spit out whatever and the engineer is left to review tons and tons of code
- rootnod3 2mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- 27183 2mo agoWhat happens to OpenJDK when Oracle dies? That's looking increasingly likely on a 3-5yr horizon.
- tombert 2mo agoI don't think Oracle will die, but even entertaining the hypothetical I suspect that some other organization (e.g. Apache) would pick up and maintain a fork.
- saghm 2mo agoProbably it would get picked up by someone else (e.g. the Linux Foundation)? It's GPLv2-licensed, so it's not like the code is going to be risky for someone to fork
- theandrewbailey 2mo agoI would expect it to be picked up by the Eclipse Foundation. They already have the Java Ent- I mean, Jakarta Enterprise Edition.
- sandeepkd 2mo agoWay too much rides on Java, pretty much every big business has their own customized version of JDK that they support and maintain
- ImJamal 2mo agoIBM, Red Hat, Microsoft, SAP, Amazon and others all work on the JDK. They would have to step it up to cover the loss of Oracle's contributions, but I am sure they could manage. Regardless, your timeframe on Oracle's death seems way too soon.
- cesarb 2mo agoThe same that happened when Sun died: it gets bought by someone else.
- bhouston 2mo agoWeird given how much Oracle has bet on AI, both in terms of data centres and in terms of layoffs.
- midnightbobarun 2mo agoSo contributions to OpenJDK have to be hand-written, while internally, Oracle uses AI generated code... I guess the logic is that employees who use AI generated code (theoretically) review their code better? The whole thing still seems a little strange.
- bpodgursky 2mo agoNo I'm sure they are just paranoid about license rights.
- sandeepkd 2mo agoI believe thats the real reason, its not just Oracle, it would eventually be everyone in this kind of boat. No business would publicly use (or claim) AI to write code with recent verdict over the IP rights of AI generated code. It would be interesting to see how this effects the copyleft Licences with contributors are using AI for the PRs
- mhitza 2mo ago> AI to write code with recent verdict over the IP rights of AI generated code. Which recent verdict? > It would be interesting to see how this effects the copyleft Licences with contributors are using AI for the PRs I know Linux and GCC have been diligent about tagging and tracking LLM based contributions. In the worst case they can chuck it all out and handwrite it back.
- sandeepkd 2mo agohttps://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10922 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10922 There is this old one around contents like images and all, the ripple affect is pretty much everywhere. Its sort of coupled with the recent penalty of $1.5B on Anthropic. The catch 22 is that some portion of the LLM training data can be classified as IP theft. Even though Anthropic has been fined the data still exists and can be used by LLM to generate code for you. So if you are claiming something as an IP and it has stolen part in it then it leaves you in a hard place. Language translations may save you in some cases, though the whole definition of cleanroom has been in debate recently too where people are trying to rewrite opensource/famous libraries in different language and claiming IP rights over them.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- slopinthebag 2mo agoI would laugh for a week if the courts eventually found issues with using LLM content and forced companies to either publish their LLM generated code as public domain or they were forced to roll back their codebases to a pre-LLM state. Probably won’t happen but clearly Oracle sees a potential for legal issues with LLM output.
- dboreham 2mo agoAssuming you're talking about US courts: this won't happen because courts and the legal system in general exist to preserve the wealth of the wealthy, and that means supporting whatever large corporations are doing. Perhaps they stop a little before things like allowing corporations to kill people. Oh wait...smoking and guns...never mind.
- mrkstu 2mo agoThing is public domain can be used any way you want. The Libre style licenses are specifically engineered to make the source available to the users of the source, no such clause exists in using public domain.
- inigyou 2mo agoPublic domain things sometimes even have their copyright registered by someone else and then the original author gets sued. You don't want public domain.
- fancyfredbot 2mo agoThe link is to a really poor summary of a better article by the register. https://www.theregister.com/ai-and-ml/2026/08/03/as-larry-ellison-bets-the-farm-oracle-says-it-loves-ai-written-code-just-not-in-openjdk/5281851 https://www.theregister.com/ai-and-ml/2026/08/03/as-larry-el... The register article is about this post: https://openjdk.org/legal/ai https://openjdk.org/legal/ai
- herodoturtle 2mo ago[dead]
- minraws 2mo agoRules for thee, but not for me. well I don't expect better from tech companies now.
- dan_q 2mo ago[flagged]
- flakiness 2mo agoThe post in question: https://openjdk.org/legal/ai https://openjdk.org/legal/ai It is 'OpenJDK Interim Policy on Generative AI' and their lawyers are writing the final version, according to this page. It sounds like a sensible action, given past scars around Java and copyright, plus this is from a big old corp. That said I personally don't expect that final proposal will end up any better.
- saghm 2mo ago> given past scars around Java and copyright How many of these were self-inflicted?
- ioasuncvinvaer 2mo agoDoes it matter?
- saghm 2mo agoI guess that depends on whether you think the motivations matter. When it comes to a policy on a hot-button issue that seems like it could easily be enforced selectively, I don't think it's a stretch to be concerned about whether the one who crafts and enforces the policy for a project that's supposed to be open having a track record of being the cause of the issues supposedly that make the policy "sensible".
- rwmj 2mo agoIntentional rather than self-inflicted.
- josefritzishere 2mo agoDeeply ironic.
- cautiouscat 2mo agoI kind of get their overall point, even if it is ironic that Oracle is all in on AI. They don’t want a ton of contributions to review that weren’t made with care, adding burden to, as they put it: “already limited time of human reviewers”. Especially for a project that runs to many major businesses, this could pose a massive risk.
- thewebguyd 2mo agoProbably has less to do with quality and more of a copyright/license concern.
- cautiouscat 2mo agoI’m just going off the reasons they gave. Which highlight both copyright and quality. Both of those make sense to me.
- blmarket 2mo ago(bit sarcastic) Oracle was always all in on Lawyers, right? No software was their first priority.
- chrisjj 2mo ago> even if it is ironic that Oracle is all in on AI Selling it is one thing. Having to use it one's self is quite another.
- dan_q 2mo agoI know you've heard this one before: "Never get high on your own supply."
- jknoepfler 2mo agoLet's just pause for a second and steep in the irony of "we're all in on AI, except where there are visible consequences." The same problems that bedevil AI-written PRs here bedevil AI-written PRs at my place of work. I'm sure it'll get better eventually, maybe, but something something Pareto principle.
- ChrisArchitect 2mo ago[dupe] Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49109165 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49109165
- dist-epoch 2mo agoOracle is not a software company, but a litigation company. It will be hard to sue people because LLMs generated code similar to some code copyrighted by Oracle if they themselves use LLMs internally to generate code.
- mbrumlow 2mo agoPolicies like this will result in the death of the branded software. As we move forward it will be easier than ever to just maintain and keep your fork of software with the changes you want or need. No more approval, bureaucracy, or arguing. Just tell the AI agent want you want changed and you have it. This will be used for huge things too. Like maybe you want a specific fork of Java that only supports for each iterators, goodby linters, hello compile time error.
- matherial 2mo agoYou truly envision a future where every program is written in a custom programming language, for a custom operating system, for a single user who will now be in charge of understanding and maintaining it forever? That user being your grandma, your baker, your CEO?
- colechristensen 2mo agoI do. Software as a list of requirements and that's it. The local LLM appliance everybody has taking in a document specifying hardware, interfaces, and requirements and spitting out software changeable locally via conversation with its users. In the same way you have a cookbook with recipes to make dinner instead of ordering out.
- sourdecor 2mo agoThat is a cool perspective to consider.
- broken-kebab 2mo agoMost people don't bake their own bread even if it's more approachable, and cheaper then vibecoding. Bread is just a recipe one may say. But in modern times have we ever witnessed disappearance of specialization? I don't think so.
- cesarb 2mo ago> Software as a list of requirements and that's it. [...] a document specifying hardware, interfaces, and requirements [...] For that, you'd want the list of requirements and hardware documentation to be written in a precise, formal language. That's no different than writing them in a programming language (though a declarative one, instead of the more common imperative ones). I've in the past (way before LLMs existed) thought about automatically generating device drivers from hardware documentation. But besides the need for very precise documentation, hardware never works exactly as documented; a human-written device driver can avoid problematic areas (perhaps even by accident), while a computer-written device driver would end up exploiting every corner case of the documentation.
- 1234-laug 2mo agoOracle is just selling AI shovels. Of course it would have a hard time defending IP issues in slop code when it had famously sued Google for Java infringement. Also, Oracle knows that it will be stronger with strong IP laws. Other companies will realize that fact soon.
- mcdow 2mo agoy’all seem to be missing the fact that Java is a mature product. it has left the “move fast and break things” era of it’s development. code is a liability, and they likely have more to lose than gain by allowing AI contribution.
- dan_q 2mo agoIt's a clear admission that AI generated/assisted code is inadequate. It's shocking given Oracle's AI spending spree over the last couple of years.
- asdfman123 2mo agoI think it's more a matter of "taking power tools away from toddlers." If you know how to work with it it's great, but if you use it indiscriminately it does more harm than good.
- dgellow 2mo agoyeah, oracle is literally betting the future of the company on OpenAI owning the majority of the AI market, so it's pretty strange to see such a ban. Their debt is already pretty much junk (and I'm not exaggerating, it is rated BBB- by s&p)
- theandrewbailey 2mo agoJava was never "move fast and break things".
- ActorNightly 2mo agoOracle Java is also basically effectively in KTLO mode. The biggest use of Java currently is Android, and Google is on a path to migrate to Fuchsia eventually. The second biggest use is Apache Spark/Kafka, but with LLMs now, you can pretty much re implement all of that functionality in pure C. They just want a legal angle, since this is how they make most of their money.
- ternaryoperator 2mo ago
- dan_q 2mo ago[flagged]
- crossroadsguy 2mo agoHow does all this AI generated code blocking gappen? Does a human decide that or an AI is tasked with sequencing that PR's DNA to ascertain its possible inhuman origins? What if someone generates code with AI and then goes into the IDE and then bathes it, dresses it (including adding comments) etc, in a way a human would? What then? No, here I am not exploring a way to fool the code DNA checking, but rather trying to find out what the real problem is with the AI generated code? (Other than license issues, too many PRs etc)
- derdi 2mo agoThe "blocking" happens on the side of the AI users. You like using AI. You are aware of this policy. Will you submit an AI-generated pull request to OpenJDK? No? Voilà, you have successfully self-enforced the OpenJDK policy. Or do you go to the trouble of finding an interesting issue to work on, get your agent to code it up, manually polish it to make it less AI-looking in case there are doubts, and then submit it? Yes? No. Why would you? To prove some kind of point, to yourself, that you can never disclose publicly? Most people have better things to do. Voilà, the policy is, again, self-enforced. Enjoy your day at the beach instead of trying to trick a project that is politely asking you not to trick it!
- lanyard-textile 2mo agoThey're just so information-dense and sprawl in scope. Too many PRs wouldn't be a problem if they were easily digestible: But they often include these giant refactors with confusing changes that aren't elaborated. The real underlying problem is with authors who do not understand the code they submit. If you cannot defend the PR, you shouldn't be submitting it.
- layer8 2mo agoThe FAQ addresses these questions: https://openjdk.org/legal/ai https://openjdk.org/legal/ai
- octoberfranklin 2mo agoThere is a more helpful way to reply, that includes this text.
- jerf 2mo agoOracle, the law firm with a tech business attached, probably wants to retain the option to sue other people for AI-washing their proprietary code, and that doesn't work if they're also publicly accepting AI contributions to their code with no apparent concern for the provenance of it. The tech business would probably tell them this isn't going to be a needle they are going to be able to successfully thread, but the law firm is in the driver's seat.
- victorbjorklund 2mo agoNot even a conspiracy theory. Just the most likely explanation.
- throw1234567891 2mo agoIt’s been established that LLM-generated code is not copyrighted so I can fully understand the company living from copyrighted data to not accept LLM-generated contributions.
- lxgr 2mo agoI highly doubt that that's the last word on that matter, but even if: Even before LLMs you could combine individual non-copyrighted components into something copyrighted.
- inejge 2mo ago> It’s been established that LLM-generated code is not copyrighted If that's a reference to Thaler v. Perlmutter, the only thing that's been established is that an LLM can't be considered an author under the Copyright Act, only a human being can. It says nothing about the consequences of a human claiming authorship of LLM-generated code, which would be relevant here.
- throw1234567891 2mo agoYou lay out my words in different order and claim I’m not correct.
- gred 2mo agoNot too different from the recently-announced Rust guidelines at https://blog.rust-lang.org/inside-rust/2026/08/05/rust-langrust-is-adopting-an-llm-policy/ https://blog.rust-lang.org/inside-rust/2026/08/05/rust-langr...
- elias_t 2mo agoHow do you even enforce such policy?
- inigyou 2mo agoHow would you enforce it on your project?
- elias_t 2mo agoI'd say by checking the code myself but at the end of the day it's just about trust. Codeberg is facing the same issue, it's all about human reports and common sense, but there aren't bulletproof solution to this problem. Maybe a prompt injection somewhere.
- CamperBob2 2mo agoHilarious thing is, if I want a JDK, I'll ask Fable to write one, get Sol to review it and write tests for it, and it will be working by Monday morning. No need to get permission or anything else from Oracle. Building a complex product from many smaller, individually-testable components is exactly what LLMs are good at, and a Java SDK certainly qualifies. And if I run out of tokens, well, that's OK too. K3 running on my own box will finish the job. I'll just have to wait another week, that's all.
- ninglor 2mo agoIf I want a JDK, I'll ask my package manager to download and install one, and it will be working a minute later. Why would you want to wait another week for something that already exists?
- CamperBob2 2mo agoExcellent point. Why, indeed.
- zaphar 2mo agoPlease do this. I would love to see this timeline actually hold true. Production quality is the bar though. Not something that only works in a very narrow set of circumstances with a ton of caveats.
- BigTTYGothGF 2mo agoI, too, would like to see the results.
- riazrizvi 2mo ago"AI-generated code" will become shorthand for code-that-wasn't-verified-and-organized-by-a-competent-human.
- pjmlp 2mo agoWhile the Oracle hate boils, Zig, Rust,... aren't much different. There is also the approach of Microsoft putting AI all over the place on .NET, and CoPilot driven development all over the place.
- zaphar 2mo agoThe Oracle antipathy is less about the policy itself and more about the apparent hypocrisy of hyping and funding these tools as "solving programming" and then forbidding their use on their own open source project.
- pjmlp 2mo agoYou mean like Microsoft also putting a break on their AI usage, which was going crazy?
- throwaway613746 2mo ago[dead]
- adverbly 2mo agoLooks like they're stuck between their shady AI dealings and their shady IP dealings. sips tea
- Lucasoato 2mo agoAI for me but not for thee.
- debt 2mo agoFascinating coming from a company hurting so hard from their over-leveraged positions in AI.
- starcast2026 2mo agoHow could we know whether incoming code is AI generated or not? are there tools for this?
- dionian 2mo agoFirst thought I had too. I deliberately strip AI metadata from my PRs in certain orgs.
- dan_q 2mo ago[flagged]
- jimbo808 2mo agoThis is inherently deceptive.
- dan_q 2mo ago[flagged]
- asadotzler 2mo agoFirst time you're caught, you are no longer a project contributor and your deceptive conduct will be forwarded to all other major open source projects with warnings that your code cannot be trustworthy and is a well documented legal liability. How's that sit with you?
- octoberfranklin 2mo ago"If I don't know you, I don't merge you" And if you catch somebody submitting code they can't explain, you don't know them anymore. It's really simple. Open source has always had a social layer. Github culture tries to eliminate it, and that's the source of this vulnerability.
- Supermancho 2mo agoIf they had a policy to ban German speakers from submitting code to OpenJDK, it would have the same effect. None at all, which is maybe the point. It's another tool to categorize submissions/submitters they find problematic.
- jiffygist 2mo agoI didn't know openjdk was developed by Oracle. I always thought it was a community implementation of java as opposed to Oracle's proprietary implementation.
- pmkary 2mo agoYeah its like George Lucas, doesn't matter you care for the Jedis or the Dark Side or even Jar Jar, he owns them all.
- user- 2mo agoIts been almost 15 years since George Lucas last owned Star Wars
- pmkary 2mo agoI know. What I meant by owning was about the creator aspect of it, and I just cannot accept Disney as the creator. Back when I was a kid, there were two toy stores near my grandma's house and they had such a competition. And people were always buying and there was sort of a hype between the two, you could either believe in this or that. And then once my mom asked one of them about something and they told us both stores were owned by one person... And now you can think you are with or against the corporate Java and in the end you are under Oracle no matter what.
- calvinmorrison 2mo agoi'd rather bike shed about darth jar jar than read any more emails from coworkers generated by crapgpt
- pmkary 2mo ago:)))))
- ternaryoperator 2mo agoIt is a community implementation although the vast majority of contributions come from Oracle staff. RedHat, in particular, has made numerous contributions.
- dofm 2mo agoThis is the firm whose debt is one level above junk and whose survival as a single unbroken corporate entity is fully predicated on OpenAI being able to make money from the data centres they (Oracle) are building for them, let alone simply paying for them. I accept @jerf's explanation is the right one but this is an absolutely almighty signal that AI-first developers should heed. And someone should ask Altman about it on the record.
- dan_q 2mo ago[flagged]
- dofm 2mo agoI don't disagree. But at the moment it is ~all major tech CEOs, right? Companies everywhere are saying "increasingly we don't write our own code". Out loud in front of their investors and customers. Even Oracle did. But people at Oracle below the C suite don't even fart in public without lawyers signing off. This is Oracle telling quite a lot of customers and partners of one of their most significant products that it doesn't trust AI code to be safe. Oracle, the company that is more exposed to the bubble bursting than basically anyone else apart from Coreweave. This message could have been a lot shorter, could have said they were pausing accepting AI submissions until the intellectual property situation was clarified, but no — they said AI code can be unsafe and insecure and it's too risky to accept it. So a good question (given that Oracle are fucked if OpenAI even stumbles) is why? That is a heck of a message to send, and it is visible enough. That is why I think developers (by which I mean individuals and their companies) whose focus is AI-generated code, which is almost everyone in public, should pay a bit of attention.
- rnd0 2mo agoLinus might want to look over Oracle's reasoning and reconsider the potential legal harm that can come to the Linux kernel from accepting AI code.
- lrvick 2mo agoSo they will not be accepting most security patches. Fun.
- stronglikedan 2mo agoThey just have their panties in a bunch because that one guy on Youtube said they'd be the first domino to fall in the AIpocalypse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py23zYn1GMw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py23zYn1GMw
- pgh 2mo agoIt’ll be a licensing/copywrite concern. Large corporations using GenAI have guardrails and indemnity from their providers to protect them. Taking external contributions is more problematic, at the moment at least. So, in a standard lawyerly manner they shut it down until safe to do so.
- qwery 2mo agoIt's hardly a surprise to see a behemoth like Oracle doing this. Accepting LLM contributions can only be a liability, particularly for such a mature, stable project. Even if you see that liability as small or insignificant, it's non-zero. Given the project and the company, choosing zero additional liability seems like the obvious choice. One also assumes the people maintaining OpenJDK have had their workload increase to an unmanageable level, like a lot of other free software projects and one thing I'm sure everyone can agree on is that Oracle certainly won't want to pay anyone more or hire more people to deal with that. A lot of people (including the Register[0]) are pointing out that Oracle leadership are gung-ho about using LLMs for everything, and this seems to go against that. It makes sense to question this from a journalistic angle -- the executives are obviously full of shit and people would do well to remember that the next time one of them opens their mouth. But pointing at the apparent contradiction -- different rules for internal projects vs. open ones -- doesn't seem particularly meaningful on its own: I don't think the CEO/CTO raving about LLMs should be taken as firm statements about how they actually operate internally. I'm surprised that this does not seem to be the default case. Among other things, Oracle stands to profit from greater adoption of LLM tools. It would be unrealistic/unreasonable to expect their employees/contractors working on internal projects to be held to the same standard/guidelines/rules as developers contributing to a free software project. This applies either way, whichever side (internal/open) has the worse deal. I don't know what the rules are for their internal teams. As far as I know, I'm not alone in that. Oracle also don't need to post anything publicly to change those rules. [0] https://www.theregister.com/ai-and-ml/2026/08/03/as-larry-ellison-bets-the-farm-oracle-says-it-loves-ai-written-code-just-not-in-openjdk/5281851 https://www.theregister.com/ai-and-ml/2026/08/03/as-larry-el...
- andrepd 2mo agoNever get high on your own supply, says the dope peddler.
- game_the0ry 2mo agoHow would they even be able to tell the difference?
- bhewes 2mo agoHow is this enforceable?
- jibal 2mo agoIt's not Oracle that issued the ban -- it doesn't have that authority. It's the OpenJDK Governing Board. (Of course the latter generally follows Oracle's lead.) https://openjdk.org/legal/ai https://openjdk.org/legal/ai That Oracle's policies over its internal code base are different is irrelevant.
- nunez 2mo agoImagine Oracle suing themselves due to licensed use violations; can't have that!!!
- shevy-java 2mo agoNot long ago it seemed as if AI Skynet is winning the war. Now slowly, the Empire strikes back - not just Oracle, but more and more resist the tyranny of AI skynet slop. I am upset that these corporations drove up the RAM prices still. They need to compensate the rest of mankind for this - after all the chip market is a de-facto monopoly. They should all be sued into nothingness, then new laws must enforce healthy and fair competition, without unfair players driving up the prices willy-nilly style. Absolute AI mafia here.
- alexdns 2mo agogreat now we will have slop , just not vibed slop
- redgarden 2mo agoBREAKING Oracle pretends to be technical as we enter a new era where managers and corporate slobs larp as geniuses
- StatsAreFun 2mo agoFrom the page https://openjdk.org/legal/ai https://openjdk.org/legal/ai - "6 Is it okay to continue using the spell-checking, grammar-checking, auto-completion, and refactoring features in my editor or IDE? Yes, so long as they are not based on large language models or similar deep-learning systems."
- inigyou 2mo agoCompletely delusional they are.
- zmmmmm 2mo agoSome important context - it appears it applies to submissions from the community but possibly not to core developers: > Contributions in the OpenJDK Community must not include content generated, in part or in full, by large language models So this likely falls more into the category of the inability of the core maintainers to manage the voluminous submissions coming from community than some broad ban of use in AI to develop it at all.
- mikmoila 2mo agohttps://openjdk.org/legal/ai https://openjdk.org/legal/ai Shitposting, the reasons are very clear and explicit: The risks of having legal problems are very clear. Google for example GEMA vs. OpenAI.
- fHr 2mo agolmao
- exabrial 2mo agohttps://openjdk.org/legal/ai https://openjdk.org/legal/ai I don't think this is as big of news as it needs to be. The explanations are from a risk-management perspective.
- luciana1u 2mo ago[flagged]
- linuxhansl 2mo agoDisclaimer: I use AI at work and for some projects at home and find it really useful (as long as you know when and how to use it) With that said... It's funny how we went from "vibe coding" to review burden, sloppy contributions, copyright issues, unclear ownership (as in: who will fix bugs), needlessly verbose code, etc, etc. Several projects have banned AI contributions now and counting. As I said, I use AI to help architect and write code and really like it; still, I cannot even count the times anymore where the model (we use multiple of the frontier ones) has completely gone down the primrose path. I always make sure I make it my code, every line is reviewed and understood, maybe I rewrite the AI output here and there, I understand the tests and testing strategy, etc, etc. So I wonder where this is all going. We are past "vibe" coding already, and so far monetization of AI has been "patchy". On top of that local AI is becoming more and more viable.
- mfmfkdkd 2mo ago[dead]
- DarkNova6 2mo agoThe problem is primarily social. When code is cheap and entry barriers don't exist, how do you filter what is valuable? For private projects, being able to code things quickly is a godsent. Also for professional environments with clear rules and mutual respect, this can be solved. But on the internet, with people you don't know? You must have some hard barriers.
- rufasterisco 2mo agoI see 2 possible users for a coding AIs. 1. Professional coders. Us. 2. Non-professional users, people that need software to just get X done. I am focusing on non-professionals. If you look at phones you find apps to book flight, book hotels, exercise, meditate and whatever. Almost anything without a social aspect can be redone with AI. Why redo with AI? Because it's personal. I don't need 55 filters when renting an apartment on a business trips: i always want a terrace and good internet, show me price ranges, something close to where i will go to work. And after 10 times i use the app with AI, it should start to know what i like, and after 100 it should better do it. I want my flights never to arrive in the evening because if it delays i don't want to be stuck in the airport. I don't really exercise, but i really want to so my app does does need to have 80 exercises, it needs to have 2 basic ones and to use each dark pattern to make me do it. I love movies, so i want to know when it's coming out. Lots of this can be done with a simple chatbot, that goes out and find planes or whatever. Yes that is going to be ALSO how we use AI. The distance between app and chatbot is somewhat of a grey area. An app is a specific personal tool. An app has an interface, that makes it more reliable, it persists things i like, history and personalizations. An app "I built with AI" likely has some IKEA effect. And much more. Overall, it's simpler, i know where buttons are because i told AI where to put it and they are big buttons, and if tomorrow i want my personal rent-a-car app to never ever propose company X that just gave me a shitty car, it will do it. If i want to see the address in can ask AI, but i can also just open the app, no AI, no internet, etc. I actually built some of those apps, for fun. We are not fully there for a non coder, but not too far. In terms of security and code, etc, run them in a sandbox, do not put personal data, send to website for actual purchases/actions, zero inbound network connections .... I am hand-waving, but i don't feel like i am bullshitting if say that the right security tradeoff will be found, no? In any case I tried to give you an example of how coding AI can mean a sort of paradigm shift for software. I do not mean it in a prescriptive sense, "this is exactly what the future will look like", it's just feel ready to be surprised by how this will develop.
- tizerluo 2mo ago[flagged]
- Ozzie-D 2mo ago[flagged]
- xtajv 2mo agoThis is a friendly reminder from a grouchy old fart that 1. You are the engineer of record on all of your commits. 2. As the engineer of record, you have a certain duty of care with regards to code quality. 3. If you are not signing your commits, you are not providing reasonable provenance and instead tossing your name around in a way that anyone can replicate with impunity.
- blueshoe 2mo agoBanning Ai generated code is like telling people don’t look on stack overflow. I get the idea but it’s a blunt tool to that doesn’t solve the right problem.
- juancn 2mo agoMakes sense, there's some precedent that AI generated code is not copyrightable, it's essentially in the public domain for now. Oracle likes its licenses.
- ltbarcly3 2mo agoThis is purely because you can't copyright the output of AI, and therefore cannot assign copyright to Oracle, and therefore it's harder for them to sue you . That's it, it has nothing to do with quality. They will happily merge AI generated code as long as you wink wink claim it's not AI generated and sign over the rights.
- nicman23 2mo ago[flagged]
- LaGrange 2mo agoAnd now I find myself staring at Zig and Java as my preferred languages. Zig is very C-like, so I feel like I'm back to the 90s - except a bit less miserable in some ways, more miserable in others. Even the fashion seems similar - at least based on the teens I saw at the concert I went to recently (I'm not exactly a frequent event-goer) - including, of course, the anorexia. I should check out how the demoscene and FastTracker music are doing.
- jreynar 2mo agoReviewer burden is the right diagnosis and the rule doesn't really address it. Oracle's own FAQ concedes that reliably telling AI content from human content is impossible. So reducing volume depends on people honestly checking the box or more likely not submitting or reviewers spotting AI tells. Some of their example tells don't seem AI-specific, just bad code smells that reviewers probably rejected for prior to gen AI. I'm reminded of academic peer review, which has run into a similar volume problem. Since there's more writing involved, there's also a lot of slop submitted and the reviews themselves can degenerate to slop, too. It's an unsolved problem. The things that seem to be making a difference are process changes like caps on submissions per author, immediate rejection prior to review, making authors review in return, etc.
- mohsinq227 2mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]