@joeyh we don't know yet about (1) and (2) (there is preliminary science about it, but results are inconclusive on pros/cons). What we know is that code LLMs are now a tool that developers use, together with IDEs, compilers, etc.
We don't want free software to be at disadvantage wrt proprietary software in not having access to them.
The interesting question is how do we build a FOSS-friendly code LLM. (Bonus point: how do we make it *disadvantage* proprietary software.) →
@zacchiro @joeyh yes people are now using LLMs to code. But I think it's to be determined that this actually provides a benefit. The bits where it DOES help are non-copyrightable (under US law; because lacking originality) boilerplate code. And then there are the bits the LLM outputs that are not boilerplate, which are either wrong because the LLM can't actually understand code, just regurgitate someone else's implementation; or right, but in an open source context should be in a library
Soon after its release, GitHub #Copylot was caught distributing #GPLv3 code from Quake 3 Arena, with a wrong attribution and permissive MIT-like license. That's why I call it #CopyALot.
For a famous piece of copylefted code tht was recognized, the work of thousands of less known free software developer is going to be included in proprietary products without even the offending developers being aware of the theft.
#LLM "trained" on #OpemSource software can only be used to ethic-wash the practice, so that most of opensource developers won't realize how they are fooled and their work expropriated.
@zacchiro @joeyh@hachyderm.io
