Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • I guess AI companies are actually super happy with major open source projects having such policies. It guarantees that their source code repositories will remain amazing assets for the training dataset construction. Open source projects don't buy massive licenses anyway - the paying customer is in the enterprise not in open source. So it's fine for open source to go without AI and by doing this contributing to AI models becoming better and better.

    So all in all, a good news to everyone :) Both the "pro-AI" and "anti-AI" crowds.

    by wbolt
  • Whether you agree with the policy or not, the way it's written is good. It just states the rules neutrally. See https://gcc.gnu.org/ai-policy.html.

    In various projects I see AI policies that state not only the rules, but also their (moral) justification. I think that's worse, because I can agree to the rules, but that does not mean I subscribe to your point of view.

    by stabbles
  • Makes sense. The G in GCC is for GNU right, GNU as in Stallman-style Free Software. The GPL operates based on copyright licenses. If LLM output can not be copyrightable (as the courts seem to assert), then it can not be a significant part of Free Software.
    by marginalia_nu
  • > The true purpose of AI is to allow wealth to access skill without allowing skill to access wealth.

    This is such a fire quote

    by incognito124
  • Given that the GPL is entirely dependent on copyright to be enforceable, the fact that AI contributions are not copyrightable is something that is going to bite someone big very soon.

    The US copyright office has released a public report about the fact that copyright requires a human author.

    They compare the different cases of the equivalent of "prompt engineering", of a client that provides an architect guidance on what they want, but the architect holds the copyright in the actual drawings and structure, even if they use CAD tools.

    Totally AI generated code as a result of a prompt is not going to be able to be defended under copyright IPRs.

    So GCC are literally ensuring that there is a human in the loop to ensure that the GPL will stay enforceable.

    by rswail
  • The comments are worth it... the full spectrum of personalities and the hottest of takes. 10/10, would recommend to a bored friend.
    by unprovable
  • The policy source is worth reading: https://forge.sourceware.org/redi/gcc-wwwdocs/commit/4d0793a...

    > We welcome all contributors to the community even if they have not yet followed our policies; we should guide such contributors on how to do so.

    Kudos to the GNU project for their attitude.

    by wxw
  • To people not interacting with open source projects that are stablished and popular, there are a lot of PRs and contributions where someone set an agent with a prompt like “contribute using my user to popular projects to improve my profile” or something similar and the entire PR and answers to maintainers questions and literally everything is entirely machine generated, without any human, and at the same time it is done in the cheapest way so steering the PRs in review isn’t even like “free tokens” because the model used is not good, so the output is always bad. The policies help point the agent to what is not allowed and shutdown the contribution, and so far the agents seems to respect it. Shutting down an agent without a policy to point to them make them very reactive. Note, there is no human involved in the other side! The person that set up the agent is not even aware of the specific PRs that are going.
    by a1o

Explore Birbla archives