Post #819740

2026-03-27 15:54 UTC

I&#39;m so appreciative of @bengl right now. Their PR that proposes adding policy on LLM-generated contributions is receiving lots of feedback from other project maintainers and has helped me uncover additional concerns about LLM: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/62447 Like, I haven&#39;t thought until yesterday evening that LLM written code is completely antithetical to MIT-license under which Node.js is written. LLMs are designed to destroy attribution, but MIT license is built on top of it.

Replies (3)

@Fishrock@mastodon.social 2026-03-27 16:08

@indutny @bengl as per current US court ruling on visual art, yes LLM code is probably non-licensable

Open ##1622040
@ramsey@phpc.social 2026-03-27 16:42

@indutny @janl @bengl YES!!! This is entirely the reason why training on open source software is antithetical to the open source ethos. Pretty much the only real currency we have in open source is attribution. When you take away the attribution, open source dies. This isn’t to say that open source developers all do it for recognition. Rather, most do it out of necessity—they needed a thing, and they chose to share that thing. What do LLMs do to that? Will folks stop sharing?

Open ##1622041
@zkat@toot.cat 2026-03-27 16:54

@indutny @bengl dang, nodejs folks trying to do the right thing here. I "love" that the first thing LLM boosters go to is how it's "unenforceable", as if that was ever a concern when it came to whether people submitting PRs actually owned the rights to the code they submitted. I don't recall some massive discussion about "true authorship" besides "pinky swear". It just reeks of LLM boosters wanting really bad to just be deceitful motherfuckers.

Open ##1622042