yogurtwrong@lemmy.world to Linux@lemmy.mlEnglish · 2 days agoAI disclosure is no longer required for the Linux Kernellemmy.worldimagemessage-square143linkfedilinkarrow-up1233arrow-down112file-text
arrow-up1221arrow-down1imageAI disclosure is no longer required for the Linux Kernellemmy.worldyogurtwrong@lemmy.world to Linux@lemmy.mlEnglish · 2 days agomessage-square143linkfedilinkfile-text
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=14c897740388216acd59477a382de327d5e27ba4
minus-squareormith@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down3·21 hours agoTo me it matters because if you got code from someone else, you’d probably want to credit it to them, right? So why shouldn’t LLM output be treated the same?
minus-square☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up5arrow-down1·18 hours agoLLM is a tool that a human uses, do you also credit your IDE when you write code?
minus-squareormith@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down3·8 hours agoMy IDE does not write the code for me, at most it autocompletes words.
minus-square☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1·40 minutes agoThe LLM works on the exact same principle as autocomplete does. You’re just drawing an arbitrary line on technology you’re used to.
To me it matters because if you got code from someone else, you’d probably want to credit it to them, right? So why shouldn’t LLM output be treated the same?
LLM is a tool that a human uses, do you also credit your IDE when you write code?
My IDE does not write the code for me, at most it autocompletes words.
The LLM works on the exact same principle as autocomplete does. You’re just drawing an arbitrary line on technology you’re used to.