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.
publickey - bizyaev@pm.me - 0x9BB1771C.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
