In my opinion we should accept contributions from LLM’s, provided the origin of the code is clearly stated somehow (pr title, comment line, etc.). I don’t think this is something which could avoid, anyway.
> I also assume we share the following axiomata. > 1. No existing LLM limits its training data > to works belong to the public domain. > 2. LLMs may leak their training data, outputing verbatim copies > of their training materials. > 3. From around 15 lines of code/text is eligible for copyright [2]. > 4. We do not take upstreams' copyright claims for granted. There is a missing point here. To me, free software is all about empathy: I feel concerned about you, provided you feel concerned about me. Why this is relevant in this context ? Because I’m thinking about code reviews. If your contribution is not important enough for you to bother writing it by yourself, don’t expect me to read it, even less expend some time doing a serious review. This apply as a general rule in all what relates LLM generated text, and so the importance of clearly stating the origin of the text. C.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
