I think this summarizes in one conversation what is so fucking irritating about this thing: I am supposed to believe that it wrote that code.
No siree, no RAG, no trickery with training a model to transform the code while maintaining identical expression graph, it just goes from word-salading all over the place on a natural language task, to outputting 100 lines of coherent code.
Although that does suggest a new dunk on computer touchers, of the AI enthusiast kind, you can point at that and say that coding clearly does not require any logical reasoning.
(Also, as usual with AI it is not always that good. sometimes it fucks up the code, too).
And, after the end of the AI boom, do we really know what wealthy investors are going to do with the money they cannot throw at startups anymore? Can we be sure they won’t be using it to fund lawsuits over alleged copyright infringements instead?
Fund copyright infringement lawsuits against the people they had been bankrolling the last few years? Sure, if the ROI is there, but I’m guessing they’ll likely move on to then next trendy sounding thing, like a quantum remote diddling stablecoin or whatevertheshit.
Either that, or put their money into defence and make a quick killing off of all the war breaking out.
And there might be new “vulture funds” that deliberately buy failing software companies simply because they hold some copyright that might be exploitable. If there are convincing legal reasons why this likely won’t fly, fine. Otherwise I wouldn’t rely on the argument that “this is a theoretical possibility, but who would ever do such a thing?”
Exploiting software copyright could be profitable, but to my knowledge its an unproven method. At this moment, they’re probably eyeing the fact that defense spending is ballooning worldwide and thinking “there’s some easy money to made”.