658
Linux lays down the law on AI-generated code, says yes to Copilot, no to AI slop, and humans take the fall for mistakes — after months of fierce debate, Torvalds and maintainers come to an agreement (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
257 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 44 points 6 months ago (11 children)

They don't, just like they don't with human submitted stuff. The point of the Signed-off-by is the author attests they have the rights to submit the code.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (10 children)

    Which I'm guessing they cannot attest, if LLMs truly have the 2-10% plagiarism rate that multiple studies seem to claim. It's an absurd rule, if you ask me. (Not that I would know, I'm not a lawyer.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (9 children)

    Where are you seeing the 2-10% figure?

    In my experience code generation is most affected by the local context (i.e. the codebase you are working on). On top of that a lot of code is purely mechanical - code generally has to have a degree of novelty to be protected by copyright.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (6 children)

    If you had a contributor that plagiarized at a 2-10%, would you really go "eh it has to have a degree of novelty to be a problem" rather than just ban them? The different standards baffle me sometimes.

    You can find various rates mentioned here: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3543507.3583199 and here: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2026/01/ai-memorization-research/685552/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (5 children)

    If the 2-10% is just boilerplate syscall number defines or trivial MIN/MAX macros then it's just the common way to do things.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (4 children)

    So do you want to legally review every line by an LLM to see if it meets the fair use criterion, since you have to assume it was probably stolen? And would you do this for a known plagiarizing human contributor too...?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (3 children)

    No, that's why the author asserts that with their signed-of-by. It's what I do if I use any LLM content as the basis of my patches.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

    So what does the signed-off-by magically solve here, that doesn't require either you or the contributor to legally review every line by an LLM? If you're not a lawyer, is your contributor going to be one?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Imagine how broken it would be otherwise. The first person to write a while loop in any given language would be the owner of it. Anyone else using the same concept would have to write an increasingly convoluted while loop with extra steps.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •