Item — HN Reader

> Darling is written in a different language so I don't think the LLM would copy paste code from it directly.

Just because it is written in a different language does not mean that it is a clean room implementation. The logic from Darling might as well have been lifted and then rewritten by a human or an LLM agent.

> Indeed, LLM code is now often better than human code, so direct code copying would be a disadvantage.

Is that why coding agents such as Claude Code and Codex have so many bugs in them? This is entirely dependent on the language chosen with the humans behind the decision to review and accept some of the changes.

> Humans are certainly inspired by other projects like this all the time and it isn't considered plagiarism.

Humans (researchers) also appropriately credit the work that inspires them, especially in experiments and research.

1 comments

you can copyright a specific implementation but that doesn't necessarily grant a patent on the "algorithm". so unless darling is patented then a translation of the "algorithms" in darling is legal. to wit: that's why all the "numerical recipes" books couldn't block implementations in other languages.

IANAL and I don't think you are either. Be careful making simplistic inferences about a complicated system. Human "translation" is one thing, algorithmic "translation" has seen separate treatment in IP case law.[1] Whether this has relevance to LLM transformation or recall I don't know.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Systems,_Inc._v._Souther....

Do you understand what you're saying?

> Human "translation" is one thing

No it's not since "human translation" is literally all we had until about a year ago.

You should read the case again because it doesn't say what you think it says - it says generating a copyrighted work via a new system is still infringement (which is exactly what I'm arguing isn't happening in this case because what's being generated is a new language impl).

To put it very simply: if I use a machine (biological or electrical) to translate my favorite song into another language that's not infringement.

We've had mechanical/automated/algorithmic transformation of copyrighted works for over 100 years now. There are plenty of non-AI systems for translating code from one language to another. In the context of shifting a program between programming languages LLMs are just another algorithmic transformation technology. In any case, shifting a program from one language to another is not some kind of magic copyright erasure technique, whether or not an LLM is used. The law has codified procedures to assess infringement. If mechanical means is used (i.e. an LLM) the output is literally a function of the input. Good luck.