2
AI solves every river crossing puzzle, we can go home now [content warning: botshit]
(gemini.google.com)
this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2025
2 points (100.0% liked)
TechTakes
1996 readers
42 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Other funny thing: it only became a fully automatic plagiarism machine when it claimed that it wrote the code (referring to itself by name which is a dead giveaway that the system prompt makes it do that).
I wonder if code is where they will ultimately get nailed to the wall for willful copyright infringement. Code is too brittle for their standard approach, "we sort of blurred a lot of works together so its ours now, transformative use, fuck you, prove that you don't just blur other people's work together, huh?".
But also for a piece of code, you can very easily test if the code has the same "meaning" - you can implement a parser that converts code to an expression graph, and then compare that. Which makes it far easier to output code that is functionally identical to the code they are plagiarizing, but looks very different.
But also I estimate approximately 0% probability that the assholes working on that wouldn't have banter between themselves about copyright laundering.
edit: Another thing is that since it can have no own conception of what "correct" behavior is for a piece of code being plagiarized, it would also plagiarize all the security exploits.
This hasn't been a big problem for the industry, because only short snippets were being cut and pasted (how to make some stupid API call, etc), but with generative AI whole implementations are going to get plagiarized wholesale.
Unlike any other work, code comes with its own built in, essentially irremovable "watermark" in the form of security exploits. In several thousands lines of code, there would be enough "watermark" for identification.
I'd say that incredibly unlikely unless an LLM suddenly blurts out Tesla's entire self-driving codebase.
The code itself is probably among the least behind-a-moat things in software development, that's why so many big players are fine with open sourcing their stuff.
Pre-LLM, I had to sit through one or two annual videos to the sense of “dont cut and paste from open source, better yet don’t even look at GPLd code you arent working on” and had to do a click test with questions like “is it ok if you rename all the variables yes no”. Ohh and I had to run a scanning tool as part of the release process.
I don’t think its the FSD they would worry about, but GPL especially v3. Nobody gives a shit if it steals some leetcode snippet, or cuts and pastes some calls to a stupid API.
But if you have a “coding agent” just replicating GPL code wholesale, thousands and thousands of lines, it would be very obvious. And not all companies ship shitcode. Apple is a premium product and ages old patched CVEs from open source cropping up in there wouldn’t be exactly premium.
And, after the end of the AI boom, do we really know what wealthy investors are going to do with the money they cannot throw at startups anymore? Can we be sure they won't be using it to fund lawsuits over alleged copyright infringements instead?
Fund copyright infringement lawsuits against the people they had been bankrolling the last few years? Sure, if the ROI is there, but I'm guessing they'll likely move on to then next trendy sounding thing, like a quantum remote diddling stablecoin or whatevertheshit.
Either that, or put their money into defence and make a quick killing off of all the war breaking out.
And there might be new "vulture funds" that deliberately buy failing software companies simply because they hold some copyright that might be exploitable. If there are convincing legal reasons why this likely won't fly, fine. Otherwise I wouldn't rely on the argument that "this is a theoretical possibility, but who would ever do such a thing?"
Exploiting software copyright could be profitable, but to my knowledge its an unproven method. At this moment, they're probably eyeing the fact that defense spending is ballooning worldwide and thinking "there's some easy money to made".