undefined

points

[-]

And now are spitting out big chunks of copyrighted code and presented it as somehow transformed even though all they've actually done is change a few variable names.

It's pretty likely that I've done the same thing. I mean, I've written enough CRUD functions in my life, for example, that in all likelihood I'm regurgitating stuff that's a copy, for all practical purposes, of stuff I've done before as work-for-hire for my employer. I'm not stealing intentionally or consciously, but it seems quite likely that it's happening. And that's probably true for many of you, at least that have been in the industry for a while.

by winstonwinston17 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

> There's nothing anyone can do about it, but the suspicion is that the big companies have taken everyone's code on GitHub, without consent, and trained on it.

I asked agent X what is the source of training data it generated code from, it couldn’t say. Then I asked why the code implementation is exactly the same as the output of agent Y. It said they were trained on the same ‘high-quality library’, and still couldn’t say which one.

So I guess that’s fine because everyone is doing it.

by atleastoptimal18 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Anthropic was sued successfully for training on books, the law still applies to them

https://www.npr.org/2025/09/05/g-s1-87367/anthropic-authors-...

When I write fizzbuzz do I owe royalties to the inventor of fizzbuzz? Is my brain copyright thieving because I can write out the song lyrics from memory?

by veber-alex8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

They got sued for downloading pirated books and not for using them for training. Huge difference.

by sobjornstad50 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

Indeed, the court actually explicitly held that Anthropic had the right to train their AIs on books, so long as they paid for them.

by blks17 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

I think if you write fizzbuzz and then sell it, without attribution, and it goes against the original fizzbuzz license, then you’re infringing.