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 7 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
[–] 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
    •