Comment by riedel
2 months ago
No problem at all in the EU, as the user would either would need to review and redact the output or would need to put a transparency note up by law [0]. I am sure that Anthropic with their high ethical standards will educate their users ...
[0] https://ai-act-service-desk.ec.europa.eu/en/ai-act/article-5...
Since when is code considered
> which is published with the purpose of informing the public on matters of public interest
From your link, that's the only case where text needs to be attributed to AI.
Code may not be, but opening a Merge Request undercover may be unlawful:
> Providers shall ensure that AI systems intended to interact directly with natural persons are designed and developed in such a way that the natural persons concerned are informed that they are interacting with an AI system
Then in that case you wouldn't be a provider. You are at best a deployer, and even then the definition doesn't exactly match using AI services.
That should be obvious considering an MR is not providing AI services.
That merge request would be AI generated content. You wouldn't be interacting directly with the AI system that opened it.
2 replies →
Good question. Actually, i was assuming that at least source code is treated as text under the legal regime (there is typically special rules in copyright law, but provision applying to text should apply). Furthermore I would think pull requests, etc are all text. So I would think this applies.
But it's not just text. Once again, it's explicitly defined as:
> which is published with the purpose of informing the public on matters of public interest
There is no "informing public on matters of public interest" in source code nor an MR. It's clearly meant to prevent "deepfake" news, like the image and video ones explicitly call that out.
4 replies →