[pythonaut_16]

Alternatively MIT does exactly what it says it does. It's up to you as an author whether you like those terms or if you'd prefer GPL, AGPL, or SSPL.

If you want a permissive license MIT is perfectly reasonable. If you want more restrictions or stronger copy-left then don't pick MIT.

[rollcat]

As far as I was able to tell, every single coding LLM out there still violates the terms of the MIT license, because the license requires attribution - and LLMs rarely (if ever?) provide any.

[zetanor]

I've not used AI to program and have very little interest in using AI to program, but I fail to see how laundering code through massive probabilistic lossy compression (silicon) should be treated any differently than laundering code through massive probabilistic lossy compression (biological). Should humans have to keep track of which software codebases they learn each pattern from, too?

[rollcat]

Calling humans massive probabilistic lossy compressors is an insult to curiosity, creativity, compassion, and any number of other traits that push us to advance technology. We've invented everything from Babbage&Ada's, vacuum tubes, punch cards, to GPUs.

Code regurgitators can't even design a coherent API.

[ranger_danger]

My understanding is this was part of the reasoning for a certain US court to rule that AI art is (at least in a default sense) fair use. You're right, both humans and AI "create" things by using things we have seen before... some say art itself can only ever be the sum of our past influences.

[immibis]

The point is that people who think they want permissive licenses usually don't, and eventually regret choosing them when a corporation treats their work as donated labour (because it is), assuming their software is important enough to be picked up by them (if not then license choice doesn't matter anyway).