[cothrowaway767]

It's an unpopular opinion which is why I'll cowardly write it under a throwaway account. Josh, I have a ton of respect for your work just btw. I can't help but see a headline like this and think "Okay the license argument has to be the top comment already".

To me this whole thing is like pandora's box and it will not in any way be put back into the box. In the long run isn't arguing about the code it generates and how it generates it mostly tilting at windmills? I've already met new / junior programmers that have used copilot and chatgpt to help them see how to approach certain problems or try to get better framing for what they couldn't quite get into the most accurate words to google.

I too would prefer these tools embody the ideal: no license violation, perfect citation of where the archetypes of the code came from. I've commented here today (amongst some great FOSS software engineers) to see if a genuine respectful conversation can be had about how just like torrents this one isn't going to be put back in the box no matter how many legal precedents attempt (or succeed) in cutting off heads of the hydra. It's utility seems like it will steamroll any attempts to stop or slow it down.

Am I wrong? Is it a fools errand to ask?

[sublinear]

> It's utility seems like it will steamroll any attempts to stop or slow it down.

What? I don't see any utility outside of education and even there it's pretty sketchy.

For business, legal compliance is not a joke and instantly shuts it down. The only businesses willing to use ChatGPT for generating code would be naive young startups who don't realize some assembly is still required and the instructions are missing no matter how much they query the bot. That's called expertise (which they don't yet have). It's not good enough to just write the code. Someone has to comprehend it so they can tweak it as needed. At some point the tweaks will become unwieldy and require actual software engineering that the bot doesn't know how to do (transform from one design pattern to another and know which to use). More power to them if they can cobble something together and then succeed at maintaining it. By the time they're through they'll have pulled off so many miracles that they won't need the bot anymore and become experts. That's quite the trial by fire, but hey everyone has to find their way!

[JoshTriplett]

I'm not saying "put it back in the box", I'm saying fix it to actually track Open Source licenses and provide attributions.

I'd have no objections to a tool that generated suggestions that came with attributions and license metadata, ready to insert into your project's file for third-party licenses. AI code suggestions are impressive.

I have objections to a tool that generates derived works from code without respecting the licenses of that code. For permissively licensed Open Source code, including that code without attribution deprives authors of their due credit (said credit often being how people get employment or funding). For copyleft Open Source code, including that code without using a compatible license violates the conditions upon which people made that code available for others to build upon and share. For proprietary code, including that code at all incurs legal risks.

[Benjamin_Dobell]

I can understand if people don't agree that it's copyright infringement, and will use these tools on that basis. However, rolling over on issues you're passionate about because they're difficult to address? Well, if everyone was like that, nothing would ever change.

[Gigachad]

Agreed. Copyright is not a fundamental law of physics, its something we invented to help incentivize creation. The moment AI tools show to help spur creation, they are now more useful than copyright so society will simply rewrite the laws to adapt.

[wahnfrieden]

As an individual do you think you gone out the other end of this with freer abilities vs current copyright restrictions? And up against bigger players than yourself

[wahnfrieden]

OpenAI/GPT products at MS making same exact bet