Curious, what are the good ways to disclose the information? > All of which comes back to: if people disclose if they used AI, what models, and whether they used the code or text the model wrote verbatim or used it as a scaffolding and then heavily modified everything I think we'll be in a pretty good spot.
David is disclosing it in the maillist and the GH page. Should the disclosure be persisted in the commit? - Yifan On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 8:47 AM David Capwell <dcapw...@apple.com> wrote: > Sent out this patch that was written 100% by Claude: > https://github.com/apache/cassandra/pull/4266 > > Claudes license doesn’t have issues with the current ASF policy as far as > I can tell. If you look at the patch it’s very clear there isn’t any > copywriter material (its glueing together C* classes). > > I could have written this my self but I had to focus on code reviews and > also needed this patch out, so asked Claude to write it for me so I could > focus on reviews. I have reviewed it myself and it’s basically the same > code I would have written (notice how small and focused the patch is, > larger stuff doesn’t normally pass my peer review). > > On Jun 25, 2025, at 2:37 PM, David Capwell <dcapw...@apple.com> wrote: > > +1 to what Josh said > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 25, 2025, at 1:18 PM, Josh McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Did some more digging. Apparently the way a lot of headline-grabbers have > been making models reproduce code verbatim is to prompt them with dozens of > verbatim tokens of copyrighted code as input where completion is then very > heavily weighted to regurgitate the initial implementation. Which makes > sense; if you copy/paste 100 lines of copyrighted code, the statistically > likely completion for that will be that initial implementation. > > For local LLM's, the likelihood of verbatim reproduction is *differently* but > apparently comparably unlikely because they have far fewer parameters (32B > vs. 671B for Deepseek for instance) of their pre-training corpus of > trillions (30T in the case of Qwen3-32B for instance), so the individual > tokens from the copyrighted material are highly unlikely to be actually > *stored* in the model to be reproduced, and certainly not in sequence. > They don't have the post-generation checks claimed by the SOTA models, but > are apparently considered in the "< 1 in 10,000 completions will generate > copyrighted code" territory. > > When asked a human language prompt, or a multi-agent pipelined "still > human language but from your architect agent" prompt, the likelihood of > producing a string of copyrighted code in that manner is statistically > very, very low. I think we're at far more risk of contributors copy/pasting > stack overflow or code from other projects than we are from modern genAI > models producing blocks of copyrighted code. > > All of which comes back to: if people disclose if they used AI, what > models, and whether they used the code or text the model wrote verbatim or > used it as a scaffolding and then heavily modified everything I think we'll > be in a pretty good spot. > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025, at 12:47 PM, David Capwell wrote: > > > 2. Models that do not do output filtering to restrict the reproduction of > training data unless the tool can ensure the output is license compatible? > > 2 would basically prohibit locally run models. > > > I am not for this for the reasons listed above. There isn’t a difference > between this and a contributor copying code and sending our way. We still > need to validate the code can be accepted . > > We also have the issue of having this be a broad stroke. If the user asked > a model to write a test for the code the human wrote, we reject the > contribution as they used a local model? This poses very little copywriting > risk yet our policy would now reject > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 25, 2025, at 9:10 AM, Ariel Weisberg <ar...@weisberg.ws> wrote: > > 2. Models that do not do output filtering to restrict the reproduction of > training data unless the tool can ensure the output is license compatible? > > 2 would basically prohibit locally run models. > > > >
