this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2026
1101 points (95.5% liked)

Programmer Humor

29716 readers
1190 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 3 hours ago

This reminds me of that scene in Breaking Bad where the two morons were talking about how if you ask an undercover cop if they're cop they legally have to tell you the truth

[–] Natanael 6 points 4 hours ago

Not how copyright works. Adding something with creative height together with something without leaves the combined work with ownership only of the part with creative height with the rest unprotected.

(bots can not achieve creative height by definition in law)

[–] m3t00@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

SCO would like a word

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 8 hours ago

Ooh, free trash code!

[–] Zoabrown@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

The conversation around ownership and AI is less about absolutes and more about clarity and accountability.

[–] JATtho@lemmy.world 7 points 11 hours ago

Stick to the GPL licensencing of your code whenever possible and the garbage EEE can't subdue you. (Embrace extend exthinguish.)

If they plagiarize it they kinda ow you the honor.

Hower, plagiarism is still plagiarism, so you better actually write some of your code by hand.

[–] SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 16 hours ago

The the greatest intellectual property theft and laundering scheme in human history

[–] iglou@programming.dev 42 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (6 children)

That sounds like complete bullshit to me. Even if the logic is sound, which I seriously doubt, if you use someone's code and you claim their license isn't valid because some part of the codebase is AI generated, I'm pretty sure you'll have to prove that. Good luck.

[–] Kushan@lemmy.world 5 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I work for a large enterprise firm, our corporate lawyer has told be about this exact scenario so I'm inclined to believe it's real.

That being said, for established projects it won't be that hard to prove the non-AI bit because you have a long commit history that predates the tooling.

Even if you were to assume that all commits after a certain date were AI generated, the OP is slightly off in their attestation that any AI code suddenly makes the whole thing public domain, it would only be if a majority of the codebase was AI coded (and provably so).

So yes all the vibe coded shite is a lost cause, but stuff like Windows isn't in any danger.

[–] iglou@programming.dev 4 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I'll stay sceptical until there is court cases supporting this logic as a precedent.

[–] Kushan@lemmy.world 5 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I think that's actually quite sensible, our lawyer wasn't flagging some clear cut legal certainty, he was flagging risk.

Risk can be mitigated, even if the chance of it panning out is slim.

[–] iglou@programming.dev 3 points 3 hours ago

A bit besides the point, but it is pretty crazy to me that we're moving towards a world where if you create by yourself, you're outcompeted, but if you use AI like everyone else, you own nothing.

[–] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

There was a case in which a monkey took a picture and the owner of the camera wanted to publish the photo. Peta sued and lost because an animal can't hold any copyright as an human author is required for copyright.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute

As you also find in the wikipedia article, this case is used to argue that ai generated content is not by an human author and consequently not copyrightable.

[–] iglou@programming.dev 2 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

I'd argue that this is a different scenario, as AI is a tool, not a being. At least at this point.

A complex tool, but really just a tool. Without the human input, it can't do shit.

[–] Natanael 3 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

There's already rulings on this holding that the prompt for all LLM or image generator isn't enough to count the result as the human's expression, thus no copyright (both in USA and other places)

You need both human expression and creative height to get copyright protection

[–] iglou@programming.dev 2 points 3 hours ago

I'd argue that it is wildly different to vide coding.

[–] draco_aeneus@mander.xyz 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Exactly. If I use online Photoshop or whatever, and I use the red eye removal tool, I have copyright on that picture. Same if I create a picture from scratch. Just because someone like OpenAI hosts a more complex generator doesn't mean a whole new class of rules applies.

Whomever uses a tool, regardless of the complexity, is both responsible and benificiary of the result.

[–] Natanael 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Not quite how copyright law works. Photoshop and similar gives you copyright because it captures your expression.

An LLM is more like work-for-hire but unlike a human artist it doesn't qualify for copyright protection and therefore neither does you

https://infosec.pub/comment/20390963

[–] draco_aeneus@mander.xyz 2 points 4 hours ago

Well, not how USA copyright works, but point well taken. It seems I was too naïve in my understanding of copyright.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] fubarx@lemmy.world 69 points 1 day ago (2 children)

This whole post has a strong 'Sovereign Citizen' vibe.

I do not give Facebook or any entities associated with Facebook permission to use my pictures, information, messages, or posts, both past and future.

[–] brianary@lemmy.zip 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The Windows FOSS part, sure, but unenforceable copyright seems quite possible, but probably not court-tested. I mean, AI basically ignored copyright to train in the first place, and there is precedent for animals not getting copyright for taking pictures.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

If it's not court tested, I'm guessing we can assume a legal theory that breaks all software licensing will not hold up.

Like, maybe the code snippets that are AI-made themselves can be stolen, but not different parts of the project.

[–] brianary@lemmy.zip 6 points 20 hours ago

That seems a more likely outcome.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 day ago

That's not what that research document says. Pretty early on it talks about rote mechanical processes with no human input. By the logic they employ there's no difference between LLM code and a photographer using Photoshop.

[–] kokesh@lemmy.world 17 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

As it should. All the idiots calling themselves programmers, because they tell crappy chatbot what to write, based on stolen knowledge. What warms my heart a little is the fact that I poisoned everything I ever wrote on StackOverflow just enough to screw with AI slopbots. I hope I contributed my grain of sand into making this shit little worse.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club 20 points 1 day ago (2 children)

By that same logic LLMs themselves (by now some AI bro had to vibe code something there) & their trained datapoints (which were on stolen data anyway) should be public domain.

What revolutionary force can legislate and enforce this?? Pls!?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] meekah@discuss.tchncs.de 35 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Aren't you all forgetting the core meaning of open source? The source code is not openly accessible, thus it can't be FOSS or even OSS

This just means microslop can't enforce their licenses, making it legal to pirate that shit

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] HappyFrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 293 points 1 day ago (45 children)

As much as I wish this was true, I don't really think it is.

[–] lung@lemmy.world 213 points 1 day ago (7 children)

It's just unsettled law, and the link is basically an opinion piece. But guess who wins major legal battles like this - yep, the big corps. There's only one way this is going to go for AI generated code

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (44 replies)
[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 71 points 1 day ago (2 children)

That's not even remotely true....

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 47 points 1 day ago (5 children)

The law is very clear that non-human generated content cannot hold copyright.

That monkey that took a picture of itself is a famous example.

But yes, the OP is missing some context. If a human was involved, say in editing the code, then that edited code can be subject to copyright. The unedited code likely cannot.

Human written code cannot be stripped of copyright protection regardless of how much AI garbage you shove in.

Still, all of this is meaningless until a few court cases happen.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 79 points 1 day ago (7 children)

I think, to punish Micro$lop for its collaboration with fascists and its monopolistic behavior, the whole Windows codebase should be made public domain.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Michal@programming.dev 31 points 1 day ago (14 children)

Counterpoint: how do you even prove that any part of the code was AI generated.

Also, i made a script years ago that algorithmically generates python code from user input. Is it now considered AI-generated too?

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 1 day ago (2 children)

How the hell did he arrive at the conclusion there was some sort of one-drop rule for non-protected works.

Just because the registration is blocked if you don't specify which part is the result of human creativity, doesn't mean the copyright on the part that is the result of human creativity is forfeit.

Copyright exists even before registration, registration just makes it easier to enforce. And nobody says you can't just properly refile for registration of the part that is the result of human creativity.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Is Windows FOSS now?

Ew, no, thank you, I don't want it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 day ago

So by that reasoning all Microsoft software is open source

Not that we'd want it, it's horrendously bad, but still

Public domain ≠ FOSS

[–] cmhe@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

I had a similar thought. If LLMs and image models do not violate copyright, they could be used to copyright-wash everything.

Just train a model on source code of the company you work for or the copyright protected material you have access to, release that model publicly and then let a friend use it to reproduce the secret, copyright protected work.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›