The danger being raised with the licensing is that you can’t license something if you’re not considered to be the author. There are growing examples of courts and lawmakers determining AI output to be public domain:
The US Supreme Court recently refused to reconsider Thaler v. Perlmutter, in which the plaintiff sought to overturn a lower court decision that he could not copyright an AI-generated image. This is an area of ongoing concern among the defenders of copyleft because many open source projects incorporate some level of AI assistance. It’s unclear how much AI involvement in coding would dilute the human contribution to the extent that a court would disallow a copyright claim.
https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/06/ai_kills_software_licensing/
This is an evolving, global situation and hard to know what to do right now. I think what you’ve got is fine though - you’ve made it clear your intention is to license with AGPL. It’s just that depending on the jurisdiction it might be public domain instead.
This is another reason to be clear about the use of AI in the README so your users can make an informed decision.
sonofearth@lemmy.world 2 days ago
You should add a disclaimer stating that you have used an LLM. I have done so for a tool I built with an LLM that I needed, because I don’t know jackshit about coding and I am not gonna pretend I do.
terraincognita@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Partially agree, but I do know how to code and use it as a tool.
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
But if OP does know and apply that knowledge to what they are doing, it’s not the same thing and doesn’t make sense to have the same disclaimer.
Serinus@lemmy.world 2 days ago
It’s not realistic to expect no AI assistance in coding in 2026.
It’s also not a stand-in for a human. There’s a huge field of gray where it’s unclear how much of it was fully vibe coded vs how much is carefully hand reviewed and/or written.
I’ve been a professional developer for decades and I’ve done both. Obviously I’ve hand coded stuff for many years. The fully vibe coded stuff is personal, to test and learn the capabilities of the tech. My professional stuff I watch much more closely, and I’m much more targeted in what I’m having the AI do.
That said, if I were gonna use this I’d actually review the code. I’m not recommending this guy’s stuff, but you can’t rule it out on the basis of ai assistance alone.
CameronDev@programming.dev 2 days ago
It may not be a stand in for a human, but that’s exactly how many of these vibe coded projects are. It’s not unreasonable to ask the developer to spend 30 seconds to describe how they use these tools.
teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 2 days ago
A bunch of people who couldn’t tell their left shift from their right shoelace think you don’t know what you’re talking about lol.
I agree, to a person who knows the machine, an AI is like a compiler: you know the output you’re going for, the tool helps you get there faster. Expecting you to do something the slow way because someone else doesn’t know how to code is nonsense. There is a massive difference between using it as a tool, and blindly taking generated code.
If the internet existed in the 70s, I bet people would have asked for a disclaimer on compiled assembly.
pimento64@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
Pathetic. You have a serious skill issue, that much is true, but you need to keep it to yourself instead of sharting it out into society. Code better or go get a job you’re more qualified for, like operating a tollbooth.
Serinus@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Ignorance, fear, or are you just following the kid’s trend of anti-ai, pushback against corporate desperation?
iamthetot@piefed.ca 2 days ago
Guess I’ll stick to unrealistic software then.
terraincognita@lemmy.world 2 days ago
You can see that I use some of metrics, like test coverage, estimates and so on to prove its validation as potentially serious project, that will grow from a pet one.
Tibi@discuss.tchncs.de 2 days ago
Testcoverage by ai generated Tests is close to worthless. “Tests are only as good as the person writing them”
Did you generate your tests?
terraincognita@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I agree with you, therefore I also need contributors for that. It is difficult to run this on my own, as I have basic in coding, but not a tester, so I have to use agentic workflow to check after it was generated, so it is not just like hiding sh*t.
Zak@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Why?
It makes sense to try to give users an idea of how robust a project is, but the exact details of the tools involved in its creation rarely add much to that. It gets a little weird with LLMs because they allow someone with no programming skill to create software that appears to work, which ought to be disclosed; “I don’t know what I’m doing and I asked a robot to make this” does indicate unreliable code. A skilled developer having an LLM fill in some extra test cases, on the other hand can only make the project more robust.