Re: Common Lisp with no AI (that's ironic I suppose)

>> Two things are happening rapidly: LLMs are getting better at programming, and people are learning how to get better work out of them

There's not a lot of information out yet, but I was seeing news that
perceptions were that people are getting better, but not actual
workflow: https://metr.org/blog/2025-07-10-early-2025-ai-experienced-os-dev-study/

I can't speak for the dev team but I'd be concerned about the
considerable additional overhead in the vetting process even
disregarding other issues.

On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 3:28 PM Robert Goldman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> AFAICT, this is a red herring.
>
> From OpenAI terms of use:
>
> > Ownership of content. As between you and OpenAI, and to the extent permitted by applicable law, you (a) retain your ownership rights in Input and (b) own the Output. We hereby assign to you all our right, title, and interest, if any, in and to Output.
>
> For Anthropic (Claude) things are a little more complicated.  See https://www.arsturn.com/blog/who-owns-claude-generated-code-a-guide-for-developers-and-businesses for a discussion.
>
> There may be lots (99!) of issues with AI-assisted code, but this is not a big one.
>
> On 27 Feb 2026, at 10:19, Brett Mahar wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 10:02:11 -0500
> > Robert Goldman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 26 Feb 2026, at 23:51, Brett Mahar wrote:
> >>
> >>> One thing that I think has been overlooked in the recent "should AI be allowed?" thread was: how about the copyright? How can the "author" grant copyright when they did not write the code? I'm not a lawyer but from what I understand the answer is "they can't" and Microsoft or Google or whoever can issue an injunction at any moment, or 10 years down the track when 5000 more commits have been done on top of the work of various agents and humans.
> >>
> >> Do you have a source for this claim?
> >
> > For the US law, you can see section 201(c) here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/201. Common law across the English-speaking world says basically the same thing, if you wrote you it you have automatic copyright, if you didn't write it you don't have any copyright.
> >
> > If you don't have any copyright, you cannot license it under MIT or GPL or any license for others to use. If the AI agent wrote it, its the AI's owner has the copyright, not the "viber" who went through iterations of asking to do things.
> >
> > Note that its not just the facts of who wrote what that is important, if I'm the CEO of Don't Be Evil and want to get rid of most open source projects, all I need is more money than the open source projects, whose contributors can't afford to be in and out of court for the next 3-5 years proving that the AI just did the documentation or analysis or whatnot.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sbcl-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sbcl-devel


_______________________________________________
Sbcl-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sbcl-devel