Some reading <https://thenewstack.io/whats-wrong-with-generative-ai-driven-development-right-now/> .
On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 9:11 AM ElPaso via gdal-dev <gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org> wrote: > Il 09/10/24 00:55, Greg Troxel via gdal-dev ha scritto: > > ElPaso via gdal-dev <gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org> writes: > > > >> I have read the discussion on lwn and I must say that I am more in > >> line with the debian position. > > My view is that code that comes out of generative AI should be viewed as > > an improper derived work, and lacking adequate provenance/permission to > > be added to an open source project, period. As Even says, we could > > relax this in the future. It's very difficult to go back and remove > > things. > > > This may be true in some circumstances but that's not what I have seen > so far using copilot wih GDAL: most of the times what it does for me > much faster than me is cut-and-paste-replace or autocomplete taking code > from other parts of GDAL or most frequently from other parts of the same > file that I am editing, for example, when I was changing ogrlineref to > use gdalargumentparser, after manually changing the first part of the file > > > https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/pull/10147/files#diff-b906434b9e6a52aef54e0894ba43a7202290b1af4964cc5d9f1ec8ae7a1c4e15R1271 > > the AI was very useful to autocomplete the other command line switches > (one by one, not all of them), I had to change/edit almost everything > but the scaffolding was there, the source of the autocomplete was > obviously GDAL itself. > > > Where is the copyright issue in this use case? > > > Another situation where I find it useful is when writing tests: most of > the times tests are boring boilerplate code to construct the test data, > for example: the next line here was generate from the comment > > > https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/58986/files#diff-8eebd3707bdc54c42ecd1a2abfca8f623a4c6a8c44c89f344a6762fe95a95059R4682 > > > also the checks were automatically generated after I entered the first > couple (they are essentially a copy-paste), the source is QGIS itself. > > > That said I agree that when an AI will be smart enough to be able to be > "creative" (I know, hard to define what it exactly is, but a one-line > cut-paste-replace from the same code base certainly isn't) we will have > a problem to define who/what is the author of the code. > > > Perhaps we could find a way to allow the limited use of AI tools as > autocompleters as long as the source of the generated material is > obviously the code base itself (for instance when using the GDAL API). > > > -- > Alessandro Pasotti > w3: www.itopen.it > > _______________________________________________ > gdal-dev mailing list > gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev >
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
