From nobody Fri Jan 31 20:54:25 2025 X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Yl7S05x07z5n4xn for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2025 20:54:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from paige@paige.bio) Received: from pv50p00im-ztdg10021101.me.com (pv50p00im-ztdg10021101.me.com [17.58.6.44]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Yl7Rz6LS0z3XBh for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2025 20:54:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from paige@paige.bio) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=paige.bio header.s=sig1 header.b=O8RZMVsz; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of paige@paige.bio designates 17.58.6.44 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=paige@paige.bio; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=paige.bio DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paige.bio; s=sig1; bh=UOHyYM+tXB1+qq0eR8OD4XLZS1q8y+6PkSTK4UfTKbg=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:Date:Message-Id:To:x-icloud-hme; b=O8RZMVszfK4ioOF5YyXPyc8IZSLnfotcBp4AJYWurjvvCxBez2T9UdxJxcyZ7haXg AfJSn56wvodTMY+/YktuK7LSpHXv6lo/H3mju2N88wnfA+drWGmfLuOMAB1ZZnPLMC cNeyK8yHrIE7ovEMJg6qPzQT2rz7RCNiyEZY6ywbITQVG1JHP2s0kmGMdBVqMlzYzD 1Pdf4sy9xQ3zD6i9qWHrpV0MuL1sDFPzYhtNp1s8ShoFBP+19yxQjsAryoVPvP9MUQ VP+xjlpRRmCifpeMrlZD+li0kwH00wVRNjFYt6CAJt4vlaMFSnFtKQgKafQe8ReWOa d4ggBg/TRdSRA== Received: from smtpclient.apple (pv50p00im-dlb-asmtp-mailmevip.me.com [17.56.9.10]) by pv50p00im-ztdg10021101.me.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 55E8BD0001D; Fri, 31 Jan 2025 20:54:36 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 List-Id: Technical discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-hackers List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.400.131.1.6\)) Subject: Re: Provisions to the contribution guidelines for using LLM generated code From: paige@paige.bio In-Reply-To: <1E478400-5DFD-4C45-B466-F29EFD76A29E@paige.bio> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2025 12:54:25 -0800 Cc: Sulev-Madis Silber , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <49B92974-E37A-4786-A456-E258D5A1D35E@paige.bio> <4922BB4E-1361-4AE9-A40D-D75E4875033D@freebsd.org> <7F5CCEEE-A8A9-459A-A2C1-9ADC31BC91C6@FreeBSD.org> <1E478400-5DFD-4C45-B466-F29EFD76A29E@paige.bio> To: David Chisnall X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3826.400.131.1.6) X-Proofpoint-GUID: UA_fyPmAJ6_lQENnyHE_ZtIGmlYKR7dB X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: UA_fyPmAJ6_lQENnyHE_ZtIGmlYKR7dB X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 bulkscore=0 clxscore=1030 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2308100000 definitions=main-2501310159 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.40 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; RBL_SENDERSCORE_REPUT_9(-1.00)[17.58.6.44:from]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-0.999]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[paige.bio,reject]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[paige.bio:s=sig1]; ONCE_RECEIVED(0.20)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:17.58.0.0/16]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[17.58.6.44:from]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FROM_NO_DN(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:714, ipnet:17.58.0.0/20, country:US]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[paige.bio:+] X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4Yl7Rz6LS0z3XBh Also I want to retract my previous statement about a renewing a patent, = I was absolutely talking about something I apparently know nothing about = there;=20 No, you cannot renew a patent in the United States. However, you can = maintain your patent to extend its validity period. Explanation =E2=80=A2=20 The term of a US patent is fixed, and it cannot be extended past the = period for which it was issued.=20 =E2=80=A2 The term of a US utility patent is 20 years, and the term = of a US design patent is 15 years.=20 =E2=80=A2 When a patent expires, its rights are discharged into the = public domain.=20 =E2=80=A2 The term of a patent can be extended in rare cases, but = these cases must be validated by a special act of Congress.=20 > On Jan 31, 2025, at 12:43=E2=80=AFPM, paige@paige.bio wrote: >=20 >> In the second case, I have deliberately used a plagiarism machine >=20 > I get what you're saying that it makes easy work of an otherwise = difficult task but I don=E2=80=99t think that inherently is what makes = it a plagiarism machine. I think people who have lives and kids to raise = generally like to contribute anything that adds quality to their own = life and given the circumstances will want to take the path of least = resistance. It=E2=80=99s entirely possible for somebody with good = intentions to use something like an LLM and for things like = Microsoft=E2=80=99s obscure hash table patent to be completely lost on = people who are responsible to say whether or not something gets merged. = There are of course people who will blatantly break the rules with the = intent to deceive and put things in places that they don=E2=80=99t = belong but that is a different problem than the one I have in mind and = my point is that even though the two are mutually exclusive they are not = always handled in their own unique way like they should be and that=E2=80=99= s unfortunate for people who have good intentions and the overall = reputation of LLMs. =20 >=20 >> Microsoft has issued an explicit patent grant of the exFAT patents = *for Linux*. The =E2=80=98Open=E2=80=99 Innovation Network >=20 > Sorry to mix threads here, but you=E2=80=99re right and this is also = what I mean; a lot of people might see something has a GPL = implementation and won't immediately arrive at the conclusion that = it=E2=80=99s only because they have permission to implement that idea = and make it GPL. The only reason that I know any better is because = I=E2=80=99ve watched Paragon Software for more than 20 years try to make = NTFS-3G a thing for Linux users. If I=E2=80=99m being honest with you, = Microsoft doesn=E2=80=99t just have an idea they have a monopoly on how = you can exchange data between computers that effectively makes it = impossible (still to this day) to use anything that they=E2=80=99re not = vetting.=20 >=20 >> If a committer deliberately violates copyright, the code will be = removed and the committer will, most likely, lose commit access. >=20 > Honestly I know it doesn=E2=80=99t do a whole lot of good to speculate = about what could become of LLMs at the moment, but I feel like if they = keep improving this that pretty soon somebody will be able to generate = their own driver for virtually anything they want and they won=E2=80=99t = need to share it because anybody else will be able to do the same. For a = few hours of work I already have:=20 >=20 > - a KEXT for ExFAT (compiles) > - fsck_exfat (compiles) > - newfs_exfat (compiles) > - mount_exfat (compiles) >=20 > And granted none of them produce the correct filesystem (it=E2=80=99s = trying to) or handle a filesystem created by any other means (it also = makes a concerted effort to do this)--it=E2=80=99s really close. I think = we might actually see something that is powerful enough to create a = solution like this given a prompt in the next couple of years and = realistically contributions won=E2=80=99t mean much because people will = be able to make whatever they want or need for themselves and they = won=E2=80=99t have to distribute it.=20 >=20 > I guess what I=E2=80=99m wondering is how will FreeBSD stay relevant = when this becomes a reality? I understand reality is much different from = this as it stands but I also gather the intention is to improve LLMs to = bring this reality into fruition. I think there=E2=80=99s an opportunity = to embrace the technology that is coming, but that there should be rules = and a vision behind it. I think it=E2=80=99s coming faster than a lot of = people can even keep up and there might not be any time as good as the = present to start thinking about it. >=20 >> Next year, I believe, all patents on the original version of exFAT = will have expired >=20 > I mean... they could renew their patents, but one has to wonder = towards what end at this point? As far as I know the only benefit to = patenting something is just so that you can=E2=80=99t reproduce = somebody=E2=80=99s idea and reap the benefits of redistribution. Really = makes you think=E2=80=A6=20 >=20 > -Paige >=20 >=20 >=20 >> On Jan 31, 2025, at 3:23=E2=80=AFAM, David Chisnall = wrote: >>=20 >> On 30 Jan 2025, at 12:03, Sulev-Madis Silber = wrote: >>>=20 >>> what happens if you take the word llm out and put a human in there? >>>=20 >>> there are ton of fbsd contributors and i often wonder if some of = them bring something in. apparently it's no "code-id" where we can put = code for checks. esp i worry about all those linuxkpi things. where's = the voluntary no consequences drug test that proves you didn't smoke any = gpl before you opened code editor >>>=20 >>> it's like llm is right out but humans are all ok? >>=20 >>=20 >> No, as I said, the following two are equivalent: >>=20 >> - I copy some GPL=E2=80=99d code (or code with a license that = requires an attribution) and contribute it in such a way that violates = the license. >> - I use an LLM to copy some GPL=E2=80=99d code (or code with a = license that requires an attribution) and contribute it in such a way = that violates the license. >>=20 >> The difference is that, in the first case, I *know* that I am doing = so. In the second case, I have deliberately used a plagiarism machine = but don=E2=80=99t know whether this specific output is copyright = violation or not. >>=20 >> If a committer deliberately violates copyright, the code will be = removed and the committer will, most likely, lose commit access. = Committers are responsible for the code that they commit, but if they = are using a plagiarism machine then the chances of them committing = accidental copyright infringement are much higher and that=E2=80=99s a = risk to the project. >>=20 >> David >>=20 >>=20 >=20 >=20