• YappyMonotheist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 day ago

    If it’s not shameful, why not disclose it?

    Regardless, I see its uses in providing structure for those who have issues expressing themselves competently, but not in providing content, and you should always check all the sources that the LLM quotes to make sure it’s not just nonsense. Basically, if someone else (or even yourself with a bit more time) could’ve written it, I guess it’s “okay”.

    • woelkchen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 day ago

      If it’s not shameful, why not disclose it?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality

      If you don’t disclose it, you can claim copyright even if you have no right to. LLM-generated code is either plagiarism (but lawmakers proved that they don’t care about enforcing copyright on training data which has funny implications) or public domain because machine generation is not creative human work.

        • woelkchen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          At least copyright is dying because of AI and few people seem to care. You can ask any of the big AI bots to recite Harry Potter. You need to be a bit creative with the questions but entire copyrighted works are in the database. You can bet your ass Windows is being developed these days using Linux code. Not because the developers are copying and pasting the code but because Copilot has been trained on Linux code and absolutely nobody is seeking GPL enforcement.

    • fullsquare@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      if that task is offloaded to spicy autocomplete, all and any learning of this skill is avoided, so it’s not mega useful