[berkes]

Are you a lawyer or an interlectual-property legal expert?

Because if so, please, please elaborate on

> I do not see how AI could be legally used on a GPL project.

Too many people "believe" or "are convinced" about matters with AI and Open Source without any backup or sources.

[natebc]

It's because, at least in the US, AI generated code cannot be protected by copyright.

<https://www.copyright.gov/ai/>

<https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...>

  The Office concludes that, given current generally available technology, prompts alone do not provide sufficient human control to make users of an AI system the authors of the output.

I'm not a lawyer either but if/when something like this goes to court the conclusion of the US Copyright Office is probably going to play a part.

[asveikau]

What I was able to skim is a bit more complex like that. Page 42 of Part 2 says using it "as a tool" produces copyrightable works:

> As described above, in many circumstances these outputs will be copyrightable in whole or in part—where AI is used as a tool, and where a human has been able to determine the expressive elements they contain. Prompts alone, however, at this stage are unlikely to satisfy those requirements.

Then, since this stuff is changing a lot, they hedge with:

> The Office continues to monitor technological and legal developments to evaluate any need for a different approach.

[asveikau]

I'm not a lawyer, but based on everything I've read on the topic I think there's a solid argument that there are legitimate questions about the use of copyrighted material in training data, and whether or not the output of an LLM should be considered a derived work. As I googled it, it seems like courts have mostly called it OK but maybe this matter isn't 100% settled or converged upon a single answer.

[lptrap]

Because you can't slap a copyright on AI output.