Re: GCC LLM policy adopted

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

"Theodore Tso" <[email protected]> writes:

> On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 12:22:00PM -0500, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
>> > Instinctually to me, there's so little to be gained from automating the
>> > writing of ~15 lines of code that I'm not very worried about this.
>>=20
>> You know the old joke about the TV repairman with a hammer?
>>=20
>> ...
>> - The 2$ is for hitting it with the hammer, 90$ is for knowing where
>> exactly to hit
>>=20
>> Same with AI-generated contributions, especially bugfix patches and
>> security fixes. The most useful of them tend to be way smaller than 15
>> lines of code, but can take massive effort to actually find the right pl=
ace
>> and the right change.
>
> Exactly.  An AI-generated contribution which adds something such as:
>
> 	spin_unlock(&sbi->s_error_lock);
>
> to a return path, or adds a missing
>
> 	sbi->s_ea_inode_cache =3D NULL;
>
> after s_ea_inode_cache is freed might fix a very impactful bug,
> including potentially a high severity security bug.  But **how** could
> such a line be considered a copyright problem?  That makes about as
> much sense as claimimg that someone can copyright a four chord song.
> You can make any claim you want.  But you might get laughed out of
> court afterwards....

Is this really what we're discussing though? I can see why one would
want an AI policy not to bar on copyright grounds something that is not
copyrightable in the first place. That's reasonable. But I don't think
it's what people really mean when they're concerned about
copyright. We've all seen the "I 'rewrote' X in Y and released it under
the more liberal Z license" projects out there. That's the type of stuff
that attracts much of my copyright conern, at least.

> If someone wants to make a luddite-like claim that it might put your
> job at risk and so therefore AI is as evil as the mechanized looms
> that caused artisans to lose their jobs at the dawn of the industrial
> revolution, sure, we could have that discussion.  But please, let's
> not insult our fellow DD's intelligence by claiming that such bug
> fixes are uncertain with respect to copyright.

I think this characterization of the situation is unfair. Because a
particular example isn't one where copyright should be a concern, then
surely the people worried about copyright are just luddites who lie and
pretend that they're worried about copyright?

Please assume good faith :-(

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQJGBAEBCgAwFiEEz8XvhRCFHnNVtV6AnRFYKv1UjPoFAmpwTRoSHGdzcHJAbm9u
ZW1wdHkub3JnAAoJEJ0RWCr9VIz6cx0QANKN/nwZxIobtn/aKiKMzkdFQYYS0IrO
ZvAsWYZbg/llqtQHf1JgO45qOnGHp8CBBAC0GiQr5szmE5V5ONKvt6wW3Ef7U/pv
AS4j4UXrk9ZEGgvIDiaTX29WGk/iS+CLdbnLxUTQOKoek4+9fsRZm5YvPluqmTPV
dv4S8aHLA0XXE7QdG8YqxU4fuDqv9P64s17wyuyrIVNUdo7uwYgxc3lGqdilRtV6
Bl3zGIIYs+pqt7f3Qm2fENEa3uZCgZ46PF09Q73SAn/0q3BvsJjpv6Z9NMZgv7h9
F+HCh2nIL6ok/7n0T0+3xmDbrgqRZdPgWSNS7DLdgvkAQrdpczCdpdGQVBNTlgeY
8FrMXHwG6mRkKWEM0D8ctiR1wY9szTZRrKhakbD2V/812IZsYna70pMzPDGpa3/a
AHbI9BFlNnx6I9GsyuS5HbyQfsA0ZuxKe7rXk5dk/xc6zz7XMZqEKT/uU3BZh9vK
l/QGr1OMYOOopSwRo8j+t+hulGZq6hTr90hYzvPqYDM1JPD4F9MBUI92UnbR+ebL
ZegI2QCGw4wDkR5KzTTvRf0eiH99xzw3ZwUixuM49p43+OIhTLvmsjMZ+Bz+5rjt
cRn3fHf31RqZvJrX461vjnGIb7D8mUmMgwGg1VD+reAxa2fsNTrtjPITVjWxFW4o
IDSO7gWWt9z9
=dLUL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--