undefined | Better HN

0 pointsnsagent6mo ago0 comments

It's clear Claude adapted code directly from the OxCaml implementation (the PR author said he pointed Claude at that code [1] and then provides a ChatGPT analysis [2] that really highlights the plagiarism, but ultimately comes to the conclusion that it isn't plagiarized).

Either that highlights someone who is incompetent or they are willfully being blasé. Neither bodes well for contributing code while respecting copyright (though mixing and matching code on your own private repo that isn't distributed in source or binary form seems reasonable to me).

[1]: https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/pull/14369#issuecomment-35573...

[2]: https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/pull/14369#issuecomment-35566...

0 comments

joelreymont5mo ago

The key is that AI adapted, not stole.

It's actually capable of reasoning and generating derivative code and not just copying stuff wholesale.

See examples at the bottom of my post:

https://joel.id/ai-will-write-your-next-compiler/

1 more reply

menaerus6mo ago

Sorry, this is just ridicilous and shows how people fragile really are. This whole topic and whole MR as well.

I am routinely looking into the folly implementation, sometimes into the libstdc++, sometimes into libc++, sometimes into boost or abseil etc. to find inspiration for problems that I tackle in other codebases. By the same standards, this should also be plagiarism, no? I manufacture new ideas by compiling existing knowledge from elsewhere. Literally every engineer in the world does the same. Why is AI any different?

meheleventyone6mo ago

Perhaps because the AI assigned copyright in the files to the author of the library it copied from and the person prompting it told it to look at that library. Without even getting into the comedy AI generated apologia to go with it which makes it look worse rather than better.

From a pragmatic viewpoint as an engineer you assign the IP you create over to the company you work for so plagarism has real world potential to lose you your job at best. There's a difference between taking inspiration from something unrelated "oh this is a neat algorithmic approach to solving this class of problems" to "I need to implement this specific feature and it exists in this library so I'll lift it nearly verbatim".

menaerus6mo ago

Can you give an example what exactly was copied? I ask because I took a look into MR and original repo, and the conclusion is that the tool only copy-pasted the copyright header but not the code. So I am still wondering - what's wrong with that (it's a silly mistake even a human can make), and where is the copyright infringement everyone is talking about?

DrammBA6mo ago

> copy-past[ing] the copyright header but not the code [is] a silly mistake even a human can make

Do you mind showing me some examples of that? That seems so implausible to me

Just for reference, here's another example of AI adding phantom contributors and the human just ignoring it or not even noticing: https://github.com/auth0/nextjs-auth0/issues/2432

2 more replies

spookie6mo ago

None of that matters. The header is there, in writing, and discussed in the PR. It is acknowledged by both parties and the author gives a clumsy response for its existence. The PR is simply tainted by this alone, not to mention other pain points.

You may not consider this problematic. But maintainers of this project sure do, given this was one of the immediate concerns of theirs.

2 more replies

pjmlp6mo ago

Yes?

That is why some people are forbidden to contribute to projects if their eyes have read projects with incompatible licenses, in case people go to copyright court.

menaerus5mo ago

Yes what? Both oxcaml and ocaml have compatible LGPL licenses so I didn't get your argument.

But even if that hadn't been the case, what exactly would be the problem? Are you saying that I cannot learn from a copyrighted book written by some respected and known author, and then apply that knowledge elsewhere because I would be risking to be sued for copyright infringement?

biorach5mo ago

The wider point is that copyright headers are a very important detail and that a) the AI got it wrong b) you did not notice c) you have not taken on board the fact that it is important despite being told several times and have dismissed the issue as unimportant

Which raises the question how many other important incorrect details are buried in the 13k lines of code that you are unaware of and unable to recognise the significance of? And how much mantainer time would you waste being dismissive of the issues?

People have taken the copyright header as indicative of wider problems in the code.

1 more reply

ahoka5mo ago

"Yes what? Both oxcaml and ocaml have compatible LGPL licenses so I didn't get your argument."

LGPL is a license for distribution, the copyright of the original authors is retained (unless signed away in a contribution agreement, usually to an organization).

"Are you saying that I cannot learn from a copyrighted book written by some respected and known author, and then apply that knowledge elsewhere because I would be risking to be sued for copyright infringement?"

This was not the case here, so not sure how that is related in any way?

1 more reply

pjmlp5mo ago

Depends on the license of the original material, which is why they tend to have a list of allowed use cases for copying content.

Naturally there are very flexible ones, very draconian ones, and those in the middle.

Most people get away with them, because it isn't like everyone is taking others to copyright court sessions every single day, unless there are millions at play.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

joelreymont5mo ago

The key is that AI adapted, not stole.

It's actually capable of reasoning and generating derivative code and not just copying stuff wholesale.

See examples at the bottom of my post:

https://joel.id/ai-will-write-your-next-compiler/

1 more reply

menaerus6mo ago

Sorry, this is just ridicilous and shows how people fragile really are. This whole topic and whole MR as well.

meheleventyone6mo ago

menaerus6mo ago

DrammBA6mo ago

> copy-past[ing] the copyright header but not the code [is] a silly mistake even a human can make

Do you mind showing me some examples of that? That seems so implausible to me

Just for reference, here's another example of AI adding phantom contributors and the human just ignoring it or not even noticing: https://github.com/auth0/nextjs-auth0/issues/2432

2 more replies

spookie6mo ago

You may not consider this problematic. But maintainers of this project sure do, given this was one of the immediate concerns of theirs.

2 more replies

pjmlp6mo ago

Yes?

That is why some people are forbidden to contribute to projects if their eyes have read projects with incompatible licenses, in case people go to copyright court.

menaerus5mo ago

Yes what? Both oxcaml and ocaml have compatible LGPL licenses so I didn't get your argument.

biorach5mo ago

People have taken the copyright header as indicative of wider problems in the code.

1 more reply

ahoka5mo ago

"Yes what? Both oxcaml and ocaml have compatible LGPL licenses so I didn't get your argument."

LGPL is a license for distribution, the copyright of the original authors is retained (unless signed away in a contribution agreement, usually to an organization).

This was not the case here, so not sure how that is related in any way?

1 more reply

pjmlp5mo ago

Depends on the license of the original material, which is why they tend to have a list of allowed use cases for copying content.

Naturally there are very flexible ones, very draconian ones, and those in the middle.

Most people get away with them, because it isn't like everyone is taking others to copyright court sessions every single day, unless there are millions at play.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse