• Traister101@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    That’s their problem. If they are using an LLM and cannot verify the output they shouldn’t be using an LLM

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      Problem is that broadly most GenAI users don’t take that risk seriously. So far no one can point to a court case where a rights holder successfully sued someone over LLM infringement.

      The biggest chance is getty and their case, with very blatantly obvious infringement. They lost in the UK, so that’s not a good sign.

      • Traister101@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Frankly I expect the kernel dudes to be pretty good about this, their style guides alone are quite strick and any funny business in a PR that isn’t marked correctly is I think likely a ban from making PRs at all. How it worked beforehand, as already stated by others is the author says “I promise this follows the rules” and that’s basically the end of it. Giving an official avenue for generated code is a great way to reduce the negatives of it that’ll happen anyway. We know this from decades of real life experience trying to ban things like alcohol or drugs, time after time providing a legal avenue with some rules makes things safer. Why wouldn’t we see a similar effect here?