undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjackp961mo ago0 comments

So, philosophically speaking, I agree with this approach. But I did read that there was some speculation regarding the future legal implications of signalling that an AI wrote/cowrote a commit. I know Anthropic's been pretty clear that we own the generated code, but if a copyright lawsuit goes sideways (since these were all built with pirated data and licensed code) — does that open you or your company up to litigation risk in the future?

And selfishly — I'd rather not run into a scenario where my boss pulls up GitHub, sees Claude credited for hundreds of commits, and then he impulsively decides that perhaps Claude's doing the real work here and that we could downsize our dev team or replace with cheaper, younger developers.

0 comments

mikkupikku1mo ago

Let your employer's lawyers worry about that. If they say not to use LLMs, then you should abide by that or find a new job. But if they don't care, then why should you?

As for hobby projects, I strongly encourage you to not care. You aren't going to lawyer up to sue anybody, nor is anybody going to sue you, so YOLO. Do whatever satisfies you.

nemomarx1mo ago

If you're concerned about copyright risk, don't you want that kind of tagging so you could prove it wasn't used on particular code?

PunchyHamster1mo ago

not tagging something doesn't prove AI wasn't used

dpoloncsak1mo ago

I'm pretty sure IF a copyright lawsuit went sideways you would still be open to litigation risk, just hiding the evidence.

What you're doing would fundamentally be similar to copyright theft, using 'someone' else's code without attributing them (it?) to avoid repercussions

Obviously the morals and ethics of not attributing an LLM vs an actual human vary. I am not trying to simp for the machines here.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse