Thanks Dan, good stuff, I am saving your points for future discussions. What I am concerned about. In the US it is a solid fact that only works done by a human can be copyrighted. So does the use of an LLM cause issue with the copyright/copyleft licences for software. Does the influx of security issues and possible code suggestions made by an LLM erode the strength of the copyright/copyleft protections of the code?
On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 7:44 AM Dan Ritter <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > The folks at Anthropic predict a surge in 0-days, vulnerabilities and > > loss of coordinated disclosures (like on the oss-security mailing > > list) as the initial wave of bugs are uncovered. Then Anthropic > > expects it to drop off and find a new equilibrium as security > > researchers catch up with the use of the tools. From [0]: > > Whenever Anthropic, Google, xAI, Microsoft, NVidia -- whenever > they issue statements, it's downright criminal not to ask > > "Who benefits from the release and wording of this statement?" > "Has the company produced convincing evidence?" > "Have they got a good track record of telling the truth?" > "Have they got a good track record of predicting the short-term > future?" > > > -dsr- > > > -- > https://randomstring.org/~dsr/eula.html is binding upon you. > > [Set the new password to "swordfish". Please repeat everything three times.] > -- - Andrew "lathama" Latham -
