[simonw]

Citation needed on that one.

If that is true, how come huge companies like Microsoft and Salesforce and Google keep boasting about the increasing percentage of their code that is written by LLMs?

What do you know that they don't?

[EagnaIonat]

> Citation needed on that one.

I can't speak for every country but Copyright laws in the US, EU and UK require a human creator to be valid for copyright.

A casual search brought up this:

- https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2025/03/appell...

- https://www.openpolicy.co/resources/u-s-copyright-office-cla...

- https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2025/02/copyrightabilit...

To add to that you can't patent anything created by an AI either.

> What do you know that they don't?

Oh they are well aware of this.

At enterprise level coding, everything normally needs a programmers certificate of origin as it were. So AI generated code is tagged within the source.

A good example of this (pre-gpt) was SCO vs IBM. Where SCO claimed IBM stole their code. IBM could prove the full history of code they created because of these procedures.

So.. if a person vibe codes a whole application and it gets stolen/copied, legally they have no way to protect that.

[edit] Reading further for UK when it comes to computer generated the law is a bit vague when it comes to vibe coding. There are laws to protect digital works. [edit]

[simonw]

> While prompt engineering can require skill, the Copyright Office found that a user’s textual input alone does not constitute authorship unless it demonstrably shapes the final output in an original, creative, and expressive way.

I imagine the big tech company's lawyers have decided that the way most professional software engineers use LLMs to help them write code counts as "demonstrably shapes the final output in an original, creative, and expressive way".

[qzw]

I’m with you here. No way these companies are labeling all the AI code as such. They must all be commingled with human code and copyrighted.