You must log in or # to comment.
Looks for my username. Sees my 8 open repositories in there. Sees my poorly coded Uni projects are also in there.
Oh lord my code is actively helping making AI worse.
Mission failed successfully!
Glad to be part of the crew with shitty code in Github to taint them plagiarism machines!
I’m doing my part!
90% of the code in my GitHub was written while I was stoned out of my mind, so I’m probably helping, too.
Woo! My crappy code and group projects are in there too!
May all AI generated code be in one giant main loop thanks to my influence 😈
Thinking back to the sins I’ve committed in C# as a high schooler… maybe I should start publishing my works. Put some poison in the soup.
Literally all LLMs are affected by GIGO. This is why everything it outputs sounds like a redditor.
Oh lord my code is actively helping making AI worse.
I checked out, it has some of my repositories. They crawled this stuff in 2025 and they probably won’t update it. Whoever uses this dataset will have to deal with some super garbage, I tell ya.
you joke but someone has actually traced to one of my commits a specific behavior that people on the internet have been complaining from LLMs recently.
How did you hear about that? I can’t imagine the odds, haha.
A friend of a friend saw the blog post about it and recognized the project name.
Can you share the blog? This is so funny
I don’t want to link the one that would identify myself, but I found something quite similar:
Lmaoo
Hope some group makes it their mission to start flooding github with garbage code.
Microsoft is already working hard on this by shoving AI in everyone’s faces
For some reason the included only the repo for my github profile that has no code in it and not the other ones, my guess is that they avoided me because of the GPL license on all my code
Spoiler
also, some repositories were my first projects so they are way more shit than the avarage AI code and it would be funny if they poisoned themselves and i have some archived project that also have shit code but only on github because i switched to codeberg and rewrote them
Genuinely surprised it’s even opt-out.
These companies train on Disney DVDs. Permission is not a factor. Training is transformative use, as much for counting letter frequency as for building a chatbot that can sort of code.
no, officer, you misunderstand! I’m not pirating this movie, I’m just training my intelligence on it! it is transformative use, see, I can now write you this summary!
Quoting one sentence from a book is fair use even if you shoplifted that book.
I would say this is a gray area of law. It hasn’t been tested yet. There are a few factors in determining “fair use”. One of those factors is commercialization, which could nullify fair use. Another is the amount you’re using.
Commercial parody is commonplace fair use. If it surpasses the original… oh well.
The amount being used becomes negligible as the corpus grows. Filtering a billion webpages into one gigabyte means their average contribution is one byte. Play with the numbers all you like, it’s gonna come out to less than a paragraph.
If we went full copyright maximalist, and criminally banned using anything but public-domain / BSD / CC0 works, the commercial impact would not be much different. The technology itself shifts the economics of text, images, video, and code.
If someone wants to scrap the shitty ass code I have on GitHub, have at it. Talk about poisoning AI
Also, all this reminds me of drama in the Skyrim and Minecraft modding scenes, when devs publish stuff under Apache or MIT or whatever.
Then the devs find out they don’t like what others are doing with their code. Drama ensues.
…That’s kinda the deal with permissive licenses. Or posting publicly, like here on Lemmy. People will do things you don’t like with your code or content.
Eh, I don’t think it’s hypocritical to contribute to a commons and then get mad when someone comes along and tries to use the commons to undermine the commons.
Like yes, the commons is there to be used… but not to kill the commons.
https://www.citationneeded.news/free-and-open-access-in-the-age-of-generative-ai/
It’s kind of a tragedy if you think about it
Really? In front of my Elinor Ostrom poster?
The most important thing is to protect the people’s right to use open source / weight AI models without licensing. Because the AI companies permanently monopolizing AI models and collecting rent forever on the commons, that would be a tragedy. It would forever shift the balance of power to use advanced technology.
I’m not using AI.
Well truly profitable applications for LLMs are pretty limited so far, but they will come. Lets say you can replace a tax advisor / accountant with a specialized LLM agent (one that doesn’t hallucinate tax code lol). Imagine oyu have an open source project that uses a coding AI agent to frequently update and retrain the tax LLM with the new regulations and laws and unit tests all this. So it’s ultimately easy to use, you just talk to the tax AI agent. Or alternatively, because they managed to make open weight LLMs illegal because they are piracy because they use books and posts without permission to train and can’t afford to pay the license fees. Now everybody has to use a commercial AI tax service. At the same price at what it cost previously to hire a real human.
As AI models get better they replace human labor. This is a problem under capitalism, otherwise we could just all just be working less and chill. But it gets even worse if “we” (like the 99%) can’t make use of open source models. Then the plutocrats get to own this newly replaced labor as free labor and collect rent.
This is why I believe the IP argument of anti-AI is so dangerous. They can afford to pay license fees, we / open source can’t. See patents, or see healthcare insurance purposefully making healthcare costs go up.
That’s all well and good, but AI makes me want to die, so I’m not using it.
LLMs training on data don’t prevent anyone from themselves learning on that data, so I don’t see how the commons is going to be killed here.
It heavily dampens the feedback loops which lead to new contributors joining. If more people feel encouraged to just let an LLM hack something for them then fewer things are learned by fewer people, less knowledge is developed and propagated, etc…
And more of that which was shared is worse because there’s no quality control in those sharing pipelines, and ironically more ego behind it when the sharer has done less (see: that person in the group project who did nothing useful and took all credit)
Nah if you’re a massive AI company and you scrape without contribution, you’re a huge piece of shit.
It’s just stealing plain and simple like anything else.
They’re not a small user getting open source software, they’re scraping what is already done to try and make you obsolete.
There are permissive licenses, and then there are copyleft licenses. Permissive licenses go in the direction of “do whatever the fuck you want”. Copyleft licenses are more like “use it for whatever the fuck you want but if you change it give it back to everyone else with the same conditions”. The people who have projects with copyleft licenses are the ones who are (rightfully) pissed about their projects being used to train AI.
Huggingface isn’t violating copyleft licenses here, I don’t think. And research projects that use it, with citations and documentation, wouldn’t either.
Now, if some business comes along and tries to make proprietary code derived from the dataset, that’s where things get hairy. But the people doing that are responsible for the potential violation, not Huggingface.
They’re violating proprietary licenses at the very least
On the other hand, totally did not see this particular shit coming. I wonder if we’ll see a rash of “permissive, except LLMs can fuck right off” licenses.
Permissive licences should be the ones to fuck off entirely. GPL or death
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: there is a place for permissive licenses. A great example is reference code for open standards, eg. TCP/IP.
Permissive licences are useful compared to copyleft ones only for unfree actors, which we should fight integrally at every step of the way
I will use whatever the fuck license I want to for my projects
No, libraries should remain permissive IMO. Applications can be restrictive if they want to. I just don’t see any point in a copyleft library or framework.
No unfree application should ideally be allowed ever again
World runs on them though. I don’t mean business to consumer shit, all that can rot in hell. I mean business to business. There’s shit out there that’s incredibly niche, takes a ton of effort to develop, and there’s no way it would ever be achieved without a huge financial incentive (because it’s just so niche and it turns out paying tens or hundreds of people takes money). And someone’s gotta pay the people writing all your open source code so most of them need day jobs anyway, which will be difficult to have without any commercial software existing. Sometimes the “all our code is GPL, but you can pay us to host it for you” model works, but a lot of the time it doesn’t.
You’ll take my code and have a nice life or so help me!
“Look, I wrote this neat highly advanced machine vision thing to help people with accessibility needs communicate with loved ones! ❤️. MIT licensed I guess! Let’s make the world better!”
Raytheon, Northropp, Boeing, Microsoft, three-letter-agencies suddenly fork it as a base for their own “projects.”
😐
There’s some stuff I also would like to work on adjacent to these things but the risk outweigh the good for as long as these psychotic people are in charge (and some things will just generally always be risky).
Institutions with monopoly on violence or companies that they deal with don’t care whether software is released as MIT or AGPL, they just take it and build on it. (Maybe that’s exactly what you mean though, I’m not sure.)
Hehe yeah I guess that’s what I meant. Just making a statement on how software has become I guess, and maybe a bit about how highly permissive licenses might have unintended consequences.
The open source spirit is one of the shining jewels of the human race, but it really sucks that I don’t think any of those “You aren’t allowed to use my code to make the world a worse place” clauses would actually hold up. =\
Right, I mean I literally published my code openly, so idc lol
Get off of Github if you think this is a problem 🤷 There are alternatives like Forgejo (Codeberg), Gitlab, and Radicle (decentralised).
Those are obviously scraped as well?
Sure, but they can’t discover them all. Especially radicle is not easy to crawl, due to it’s decentralised nature. It can even be hosted on TOR and I2P
I am personally on SourceHut, but do have a codeberg account.
Wow, got about 9 repos of mine there and a few from my startup’s, only public ones are scraped so I say fair enough. Happy to have switched to running my own git infra a year ago
meanwhile I’m just here scraping GitHub repos for API keys and credentials 🤷♂️
for legal reasons I must insist this is a joke, and in Minecraft.
A number of my repos are listed.
But the weird part is that it also lists a repo I don’t recognize. The repo does actually exist on my github account, but it’s marked as “ignored”, and the description says it was automatically exported from Google Code. The code seems to be a MacOS shareware file encryption tool called “BitClamp”, published circa 2008.
No idea how it got on my account.
I’m just realizing that I’ve had my college transcripts on GitHub since I graduated years ago.
They got some broken Linux configuration from me, some project with many securities fails in it and a big amount of virus codes I got from the time I was hypefocusing on worms…
I like “hypefocusing”, even if it’s a typo.
It’s a better decription of 9/10 of the time i would otherwise say i “hyperfocus”.
That a subcategory of hyper focusing. I just invented like once you told me XD.
“Hypefocusing” = “Yes I can hear you and yes I should be doing something else right now BUT - counterpoint - look how cool this!”
Bad News: My old GitHub repos are there.
Good News: I wrote that shit when I was 12. The code runs, but it’s not good and not inventive.
For me, they only have one of my repos, and I deleted all my repos months ago, so whether they actually have the code or just the title idk
Good news: If anyone wants the one they got, I host it myself here instead. Fuck M$, AI thieves etc.
I mean they can probably steal it from my site too but I’ve taken precautions, and the second biggest reason to migrate off corpo accounts entirely – my site is a much smaller hacker target than Github.
Reposted on instance with likely more reach
I don’t see a problem as long as they stick to AGPL when building a product out of it
Edit: Oh they also scraped my proprietary code 🧐
So they scrapped stuff that wasn’t permissive? Interesting… though not really surprising.
They also scrapped my GPL code, apparently
Well… I’d rather the dataset be public and there, with an ostensible centralized opt-out, instead of every AI startup frantically rescraping the same things their predecessors did.
True, I understand why this is better than all those companies scraping it individually (for both ability to opt out and site load), but the way they handled opt out is still quite silly.
If they only include repositories that come with a proper open source license technically they don’t even need to provide an opt-out option. So, good thing that at least it exists.
Second that. After all all my open repositories are all either licenced under GPL or MIT, so complaining would be a kind of hypocritical.
GPL is dodgy to be included in training data for AIs that are then used to generate non-openaource code tbh. Even MIT loses the attribution it’s supposed to have once laundered through AI…
Speaking as someone that’s been into FOSS for a long time, it does piss me off how quickly copyright got thrown under the bus the moment it became inconvenient for people with money.
Yes, but what HuggingFace is doing here is the distribution of a data set. And so long the data set itself is open that doesn’t conflict with GPL. HuggingFace is not responsible about how others use that data set.
Whether LLMs themselves violate copyright for being trained on MIT or GPL code is an entirely different discussion.
EDIT: oops replied to wrong comment
Woof. They really went for it on my GitHub
Yes, there is code from 79 repositories in The Stack v3
Out of my 33 public repositories, they only scraped the 7 oldest, pointless ones. Weird.
…and now, suddenly, github being overrun by vibecoded garbage isn’t so bad
AI will poison itself trust, like when it links AI made articles.
Time to leave malicious code for Claud in git hub projects.
I’m doing my part by already writing shitty code.
