Interesting video

[Joanna]

440bx do you even understand the difference between authors of code consenting for me to use it and AI harvesting people’s intellectual property without their consent and selling it ?
You’re good at rationalizing using stolen intellectual property.

Backprop interesting story. AI is definitely hackable and full of security flaws.

Yay I’m not allowed to compose and send reply in one action anymore. Thanks AI scrapers.

[Martin_fr]

https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,73827.0.html

While this is outside that board, and I haven't moved it because this thread has very little to do with Pascal as in "Pascal and AI", the notes in the linked article are still relevant.

There is a point that the the general philosophical, social, legal, and whatnot background has a certain interest to people involved with coding. But at this point this thread seems to loop in circles.

I wont be locking it down for now. But I expect it to turn to something somewhat relevant, please.

[440bx]

You’re good at rationalizing using stolen intellectual property.

From the looks of it I'd say you are even better at it than I am because, just about everything you've coded in your life is derived directly or indirectly from somebody else's intellectual property, yet in that above statement of yours you are not acknowledging that.  You stole it fair and square, therefore it's yours, is that how it works ?  When you do it, it's ok but, when someone else does it, it's not.  I think I've seen that before and, not just from you.

You weren't born spontaneously knowing the things you know, therefore, every line of code you've written could be painted as "stolen intellectual property". 

From what I've seen AI doesn't seem to simply copy code, it massages it.  Whether it is sufficiently "massaged" to be considered "original work" or plagiarism, that part I won't make any claims because it is often quite difficult to figure out where to draw the line.

AI has just about all the faults a human programmer _can_/_may_ have.    It's just a tool, the programmer is ultimately responsible for how it is used.

[LeP]

I'm OT, but I cannot see some concepts exposed ...
@440bx
If I write a book and decide that that book must be paid to read and that its distribution is prohibited to anyone other than me or my direct licensees, everyone must accept this.
Anyone who fails to do so is committing an unlawful act.

And it's pointless to say that I didn't invent the letters, that I didn't invent the words, or that the book isn't my invention, nor is the paper it's written on my invention, and that therefore anyone can appropriate that book and its content.

Copyright exists, among other rights, and we know how AI training "works".

[440bx]

I don't argue that if you write a book you don't own the book but, what I do point out is that even when you wrote the entire book, its contents may be deemed "too close" to the contents of another book, therefore you actually "swiped" somebody's work and are attempting to pass it as your own.  Where that line is drawn is often quite difficult to pinpoint and AI, more often than not, massages whatever it gives its user, sufficiently that it is far from obvious that what it delivered isn't "kosher".  Copyright law allows you to paraphrase and to a limited extent to quote verbatim.  AI is quite good at "paraphrasing".

Whether we want to acknowledge it or not, most everything everyone does is the result of prior art authored by someone else.   This means, people who live in glass houses would be wise to think twice before throwing stones around.

[Joanna]

Lep I could not have said it better. 

440bx you have a lot of audacity accusing me of stealing intellectual property. I bought my copy of turbo pascal 7 at the store. All other programming has used opensource code. 
Martin hopefully no AI generated code will ever make its way into fpc or Lazarus.

The AI seems like a good way to trick people into using copyrighted intellectual property and then sue them later if they make money from it.