Programmer Humor

Do it in a way that a human can understand but AI fails. I remember my days and you guys are my mvp helping me figure shit out.

If there was an actual civil suit you'd probably be able to subpoena people for that information, and the standard is only more likely than not. I have no idea if the general idea is bullshit, though.

IANAL

By that same logic LLMs themselves (by now some AI bro had to vibe code something there)

I'm guessing LLMs are still really really bad at that kind of programming. The packaging of the LLM, sure.

& their trained datapoints

For legal purposes, it seems like the weights would be generated by the human-made training algorithm. I have no idea if that's copyrightable under US law. The standard approach seems to be to keep them a trade secret and pretend there's no espionage, though.

I do not give Facebook or any entities associated with Facebook permission to use my pictures, information, messages, or posts, both past and future.

The Windows FOSS part, sure, but unenforceable copyright seems quite possible, but probably not court-tested. I mean, AI basically ignored copyright to train in the first place, and there is precedent for animals not getting copyright for taking pictures.

btw this is happening actuallt AI trained on copyrighted material and it's repeating similar or sometimes verbatim copies but license-free :D

It's just the code that's not under copyright, so if someone leaked it you could legally copy and distribute any parts which are AI generated but it wouldn't invalidate copyright on the official binaries.

If all the code were AI generated (or enough of it to be able to fill in the blanks), you might be able to make a case that it's legal to build and distribute binaries, but why would you bother distributing that slop?

Yeah, a lot of copyright law in the US is extremely forgiving towards creators making mistakes. For example, you can only file for damages after you register the copyright, but you can register after the damages. So like if I made a book, someone stole it and starting selling copies, I could register for a copyright afterwards. Which honestly is for the best. Everything you make inherently has copyright. This comment, once I click send, will be copyrighted. It would just senselessly create extra work for the government and small creators if everything needed to be registered to get the protections.

Edit: As an example of this, this is why many websites in their terms of use have something like "you give us the right to display your work" because, in some sense, they don't have the right to do that unless you give them the right. Because you have a copyright on it. Displaying work over the web is a form of distribution.

The law is very clear that non-human generated content cannot hold copyright.

That monkey that took a picture of itself is a famous example.

But yes, the OP is missing some context. If a human was involved, say in editing the code, then that edited code can be subject to copyright. The unedited code likely cannot.

Human written code cannot be stripped of copyright protection regardless of how much AI garbage you shove in.

Still, all of this is meaningless until a few court cases happen.

Agentic IDEs like Cursor track usage and how much of the code is LLM vs human generated.

Which probably means it tracks every single keystroke inside it. Which rightfully looks like a privacy and/or corporate code ownership nightmare.

But hey at least our corporate overlords are happy to see the trend go up. The fact that we tech people were all very unsubtly threatened into forced agentic IDEs usage despite vocal concerns about code quality drop, productivity losses and increasing our dependence on US tech (especially openly nazi tech) says it all.

I believe it was a product of the earlier conflict between copyright owners and AIs on the training side. The compromise was that they could train on copyright data but lose any copyright protections on the output of the AI.