this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2026
47 points (96.1% liked)
Fuck AI
6703 readers
129 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I guess it was just as simple as you say, I was just looking for a “yeah, that’s how it is.” I guess. I was having a conversation, looking for a clear reflection that I was correct or not.
But also, I feel like there must be room for exploration here, since mixing AI generated with hand written is a thing. And there must be something around the facilitation/collaboration part. It feels like it’s not just as simple as free code that is controlled via access to the source.
I totally understand that purely generated output is not copyrightable. That’s clear. But I feel like there must be grey area yet to be litigated.
Can I legally reverse engineer AI generated software? Does it matter what modules are hand written and what ones are not when I reverse engineer it? How is this accounted for in licenses? Terms of Service?
Can you even put terms and conditions on this supposed public domain copyright free compiled software product? Etc. etc.
Is the compiled version even different than the raw AI generated source code in its ability to be licensed?
How do you prove code is AI generated? How do you pick it apart when it’s only ai augmented?
This is why I’m asking the questions I am. It just doesn’t feel like it all hangs together clearly.
What rights does one have to AI generated code? Be it compiled or source.
If you have the source, why would you need to?
You can put terms on anything, but you can't protect the underlying asset if someone breaks your terms. Think of the code produced by Grsecruity that they put behind a paywall -- people were free to release the code (since it was licensed as open source as a derivative work), but obviously Grsecruity was able to discontinue their agreement with their clients who would do so.
People aren't generally licensing compiled binaries as open source, since you can't produce derivative works from them. But I think that if there is no copyright protection for the work, compiling it doesn't change the copyrightability. Curious what you think.
Why is that surely the case? It is public domain - that is the most "communal" you can get for copyright.