With all the discussion around detecting when a code repo contains commits authored by an LLM, I think it is important to note commits like the following in Mozilla Firefox from 2 weeks ago:

[pinskia@hachyderm.io]

@sarahjamielewis They even have a full bugzilla section:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&component=AI%20for%20Development&product=Developer%20Infrastructure

[oblomov@sociale.network]

@sarahjamielewis JFC 8-(

[mallory@hachyderm.io]

@sarahjamielewis Good that they’re not pretending a machine is a person. Bad that they’re not coming up with a new git footer to document their bad decisions.

[lexinova@cyberplace.social]

@sarahjamielewis they are jalous of the number of crashing bug in Windows, they also want new crash on each update ...

they are unredeemable, techbro cancer killed them, if google and co jump of the bridge they will follow.

[realaaa@mastodon.au]

@sarahjamielewis thanks for the link !

Interesting, seems counter to the discussions like this one yes

https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/185387

[jbowen@mast.hpc.social]

@sarahjamielewis
Yet another reason to abandon Firefox and Mozilla in general.

Edit: Use NetSurf or Lynx. Or just curl or wget.

[mmu_man@m.g3l.org]

@sarahjamielewis OTOH I'd think having a real human to blame would be less bad than a machine…

[kevinrns@mstdn.social]

@sarahjamielewis

"Author... "

Lol

The producer of a "leperous distilment" needs a better word than author.

Something that says malicious laughter, incompetence and illegitimacy.

Maybe Shakespeare.

#ai

[linear@nya.social]

@sarahjamielewis@mastodon.social according to my understanding of current copyright guidance in the United States, doing this means they forfeit their copyright to the entire Firefox codebase.

[tedmielczarek@mastodon.social]

@sarahjamielewis *sigh*

[linear@nya.social]

@sarahjamielewis@mastodon.social attached excerpts are why i believe this. these come from this document, the Congressional Research Service's report on Generative Artificial Intelligence and
Copyright Law.

https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB10922/LSB10922.8.pdf

[slyborg@vmst.io]

@jbowen >not just reading the OTA traffic in Wireshark
You get used to it, I don’t even see the code, just “blonde… brunette… redhead…”

[fabrice@fosstodon.org]

@tedmielczarek @sarahjamielewis did you find agent commits before that date?

[mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org]

@sarahjamielewis oooooooohhh ffffffuuuuuuuuuu what even is this timeline I cannot any more

[jiub@not.an.evilcyberhacker.net]

@sarahjamielewis@mastodon.social ffs mozilla is the worst ​​

[mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org]

@sarahjamielewis @linear no, it just means that the slop output is not copyrightable as a work in itself

(it’s still encumbered by the licences (or lack thereof) of all the stolen works they fed it with)

[mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org]

@sarahjamielewis and that was sylvestre?

Will he add slop to the Dehian package, too?

[jbowen@mast.hpc.social]

@slyborg
That's... gross

[linear@nya.social]

@mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org

my understanding is that what you said is the case if it is disclosed, or failing that as in this case, can be determined after the fact:

"Zarya of the Dawn: A February 2023 decision that AI-generated illustrations for a graphic novel were not copyrightable, although the human-authored text of the novel and overall selection and arrangement of the images and text in the novel could be copyrighted."

but that if it is not disclosed, and the AI-generated output cannot be separated upon request from that made by humans, then the entire work is at risk:

"Théâtre D’opéra Spatial: A September 2023 decision that an artwork generated by AI and then modified by the applicant could not be copyrighted, since the applicant failed to identify and disclaim the AI-generated portions of the work as required by the AI
Guidance."

[rusty__shackleford@mastodon.social]

@jbowen @sarahjamielewis

Re: https://mastodon.social/@rusty__shackleford/116115426047925246