Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2025 12:43:55 -0800 From: paige@paige.bio To: David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Sulev-Madis Silber <freebsd-hackers-freebsd-org952@ketas.si.pri.ee>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Provisions to the contribution guidelines for using LLM generated code Message-ID: <1E478400-5DFD-4C45-B466-F29EFD76A29E@paige.bio> In-Reply-To: <7F5CCEEE-A8A9-459A-A2C1-9ADC31BC91C6@FreeBSD.org> References: <49B92974-E37A-4786-A456-E258D5A1D35E@paige.bio> <4922BB4E-1361-4AE9-A40D-D75E4875033D@freebsd.org> <EA849D16-0FA6-4808-BEE1-D0D4AAFB898C@ketas.si.pri.ee> <7F5CCEEE-A8A9-459A-A2C1-9ADC31BC91C6@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> In the second case, I have deliberately used a plagiarism machine=20 I get what you're saying that it makes easy work of an otherwise = difficult task but I don=E2=80=99t think that inherently is what makes = it a plagiarism machine. I think people who have lives and kids to raise = generally like to contribute anything that adds quality to their own = life and given the circumstances will want to take the path of least = resistance. It=E2=80=99s entirely possible for somebody with good = intentions to use something like an LLM and for things like = Microsoft=E2=80=99s obscure hash table patent to be completely lost on = people who are responsible to say whether or not something gets merged. = There are of course people who will blatantly break the rules with the = intent to deceive and put things in places that they don=E2=80=99t = belong but that is a different problem than the one I have in mind and = my point is that even though the two are mutually exclusive they are not = always handled in their own unique way like they should be and that=E2=80=99= s unfortunate for people who have good intentions and the overall = reputation of LLMs. =20 > Microsoft has issued an explicit patent grant of the exFAT patents = *for Linux*. The =E2=80=98Open=E2=80=99 Innovation Network Sorry to mix threads here, but you=E2=80=99re right and this is also = what I mean; a lot of people might see something has a GPL = implementation and won't immediately arrive at the conclusion that = it=E2=80=99s only because they have permission to implement that idea = and make it GPL. The only reason that I know any better is because = I=E2=80=99ve watched Paragon Software for more than 20 years try to make = NTFS-3G a thing for Linux users. If I=E2=80=99m being honest with you, = Microsoft doesn=E2=80=99t just have an idea they have a monopoly on how = you can exchange data between computers that effectively makes it = impossible (still to this day) to use anything that they=E2=80=99re not = vetting.=20 > If a committer deliberately violates copyright, the code will be = removed and the committer will, most likely, lose commit access. Honestly I know it doesn=E2=80=99t do a whole lot of good to speculate = about what could become of LLMs at the moment, but I feel like if they = keep improving this that pretty soon somebody will be able to generate = their own driver for virtually anything they want and they won=E2=80=99t = need to share it because anybody else will be able to do the same. For a = few hours of work I already have:=20 - a KEXT for ExFAT (compiles) - fsck_exfat (compiles) - newfs_exfat (compiles) - mount_exfat (compiles) And granted none of them produce the correct filesystem (it=E2=80=99s = trying to) or handle a filesystem created by any other means (it also = makes a concerted effort to do this)--it=E2=80=99s really close. I think = we might actually see something that is powerful enough to create a = solution like this given a prompt in the next couple of years and = realistically contributions won=E2=80=99t mean much because people will = be able to make whatever they want or need for themselves and they = won=E2=80=99t have to distribute it.=20 I guess what I=E2=80=99m wondering is how will FreeBSD stay relevant = when this becomes a reality? I understand reality is much different from = this as it stands but I also gather the intention is to improve LLMs to = bring this reality into fruition. I think there=E2=80=99s an opportunity = to embrace the technology that is coming, but that there should be rules = and a vision behind it. I think it=E2=80=99s coming faster than a lot of = people can even keep up and there might not be any time as good as the = present to start thinking about it. > Next year, I believe, all patents on the original version of exFAT = will have expired I mean... they could renew their patents, but one has to wonder towards = what end at this point? As far as I know the only benefit to patenting = something is just so that you can=E2=80=99t reproduce somebody=E2=80=99s = idea and reap the benefits of redistribution. Really makes you think=E2=80= =A6=20 -Paige > On Jan 31, 2025, at 3:23=E2=80=AFAM, David Chisnall = <theraven@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >=20 > On 30 Jan 2025, at 12:03, Sulev-Madis Silber = <freebsd-hackers-freebsd-org952@ketas.si.pri.ee> wrote: >>=20 >> what happens if you take the word llm out and put a human in there? >>=20 >> there are ton of fbsd contributors and i often wonder if some of them = bring something in. apparently it's no "code-id" where we can put code = for checks. esp i worry about all those linuxkpi things. where's the = voluntary no consequences drug test that proves you didn't smoke any gpl = before you opened code editor >>=20 >> it's like llm is right out but humans are all ok? >=20 >=20 > No, as I said, the following two are equivalent: >=20 > - I copy some GPL=E2=80=99d code (or code with a license that requires = an attribution) and contribute it in such a way that violates the = license. > - I use an LLM to copy some GPL=E2=80=99d code (or code with a license = that requires an attribution) and contribute it in such a way that = violates the license. >=20 > The difference is that, in the first case, I *know* that I am doing = so. In the second case, I have deliberately used a plagiarism machine = but don=E2=80=99t know whether this specific output is copyright = violation or not. >=20 > If a committer deliberately violates copyright, the code will be = removed and the committer will, most likely, lose commit access. = Committers are responsible for the code that they commit, but if they = are using a plagiarism machine then the chances of them committing = accidental copyright infringement are much higher and that=E2=80=99s a = risk to the project. >=20 > David >=20 >=20
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1E478400-5DFD-4C45-B466-F29EFD76A29E>