On 19/05/2025 19:15, Ilya Bizyaev wrote:
On Monday, May 19th, 2025 at 02:34, Justin Zobel <jus...@1707.io> wrote:
On 18/05/2025 16:41, Albert Vaca Cintora wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2025, 08:59 Justin Zobel, <jus...@1707.io> wrote:
If the contributor cannot tell you the license(s) of the code
that was used to generate the code, then it's literally gambling
that this code wasn't taken from another project by Gemini and
used without their permission or used in a way that violates the
license and opens up the KDE e.V. to litigation.
I'm no lawyer but I would expect that training AI will fall under
fair use of copyrighted code. If that's not the case already, it
will probably be soon. The benefits of AI to society are too large
to autoimpose such a roadblock.
Albert
From my understanding (what others have told me), AI generally does
not produce good quality code though. So how is that a benefit to
society?
Well, in that case, those “others” are using them wrong or are just
spreading second-hand misinformation.
If you really care about the licensing aspect, focus on it instead of
diverting this thread into other topics with statements like this one.
As a data point, we've recently used AI models for our modernization
work on https://invent.kde.org/websites/kde-ru, with careful manual
review of course, and it has helped us perform the amount of work we
physically would not have had the time to do ourselves. I cannot
imagine any legal risks from reasonable use of LLMs for web
development in KDE. If a ban is imposed on it, I'm unlikely to spend
an order of magniute more time on this tedious work.
As long as that work hasn't violated any copyrights or licensing, I'm
happy for people to use it. The point is, we do not know where LLMs get
their content. It is a legal issue. If you don't have the time to do
something, that is also fine. Most of us are volunteers to KDE, we give
what time we can.
