you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the 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/

  • 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.

  • 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...?

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments