[reidrac]

> Pre-training is, actually, our collective gift that allows many individuals to do things they could otherwise never do, like if we are now linked in a collective mind, in a certain way.

Is not a gift if it was stolen.

Anyway, in my opinion the code that was generated by the LLM is yours as long as you're responsible for it. When I look at a PR I'm reading the output of a person, independently of the tools that person used.

There's conflict perhaps when the submitter doesn't take full ownership of the code. So I agree with Antirez on that part

[tonyedgecombe]

>Is not a gift if it was stolen.

Yeah, I had a visceral reaction to that statement.

[amelius]

Yet nobody is changing their licenses to exclude AI use. So I assume they are OK with it.

[slim]

It is knowledge, it can't be stolen. It is stolen only in the sense of someone gatekeeping knowledge. Which is as a practice, the least we can say, dubious. because is math stolen ? if you stole math to build your knowledge on top of it, you own nothing and can claim to have been stolen yourself

[wernsey]

I disagree.

Code is the expression of knowledge and can be protected by copyright.

A lot of the popular licenses on GitHub (like MIT) permits you to use a piece of code on the condition that you credit the original author. If an LLM outputs code from such a project (or remixes code from several such projects) then it needs to credit the original authors or be in violation.

If Disney's intellectual property can be stolen and needs to be protected for 95+ years by copyright then surely the bedroom programmers' labor deserves the same protections.

[jakkos]

Are you against copyright, patents, and IP in all forms then?

[lou1306]

If you are so adamant about this, why don't you release all your own code in the public domain? Aren't you gatekeeping knowledge too?