[atleastoptimal]

The attitude is derived from a general animus many have towards AI companies. They resent the efficacy of AI because it devalues individual expertise.

I can't imagine it really justifiable to say that training off data is the same as "stealing", when that same claim, that learned information that a person could retain and reproduce constitutes copyright infringement is the subject of many dystopian narratives, like this one, where once your brain is uploaded to the cloud you have to pay royalties based on every media product you remember.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0E

[RealityVoid]

This is the answer. People don't like having their livelihood threatened so they kick the thing that threatens it.

[mattmanser]

Part of how AI works is that it's just really complicated compression, you can get AI to write out Harry Potter novels word for word with the right prompting.

When it picks out a rare bit of code, it will be simply copying that code, illegally, and presenting it without attribution or any licenses which is in fact breaking the law but AI companies are too important for the law to apply to them.

There's been instances where models have spat out comments in code that mention original authors, etc., effectively outing itself as a copyright thief.

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.

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 is copyright theft, but because programmers are little people, not Disney, we don't have any recourse.

[CWuestefeld]

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.

[winstonwinston]

> 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.

[Dylan16807]

You asked a machine that makes things up when it doesn't know the answer a question that it has no way of knowing the answer to. I don't know why you bothered to relay its response.

[winstonwinston]

It's a software, not a machine. The comment is relevant to the suspicion that THE software is using (distributing) some OSS code without attribution.

[Dylan16807]

> It's a software, not a machine.

It's both and I don't see how that matters.

> The comment is relevant to the suspicion that THE software is using (distributing) some OSS code without attribution.

The accusations in the comment are relevant.

Framing it as a conversation with an LLM and showing its responses, when that LLM does not have access to the answer and is fully making up a response, is irrelevant and distracting.

[winstonwinston]

I see your point.

[atleastoptimal]

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?

[veber-alex]

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

[sobjornstad]

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

[blks]

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