Jean Louis <[email protected]> writes: > Let's stop pretending that copyright assignment and human‑only > authorship are essential to freedom. They were tactics, not > principles. If we can now produce more free software with less legal > overhead, using tools we control, that's a win—not a threat.
The issue, though, that I think Ihor has raised elsewhere is that the code (patch) generated by the LLM, copyrighted or not, may be so "dense" as to be beyond easy human understanding. Therefore, if it is accepted, that is a potential loss for free software as it can lead to eventual humans lazily accepting the LLM code without understanding it and leading to future problems. A solution to this problem may be to only accept LLM generated code that is produced in a Literate Programming fashion. The LLM should be able to do a deep dive on explaining the detailed requirements that led to the code, the breakdown of the requirements that went into the code blocks, and how each code block is supposed to function. Of course, this would require putting the proper tooling into GNU software to deal with literate programs or patches, I don't think that would be very difficult, but others would have to speak to that. Would this be possible given today's technology? -- David Masterson
