zlacker

>>laiysb+(OP)
I do love one bot asking another bot to sign a CLA! - https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pull/115732#issuecomment-2...

>>Crosse+d3
That's funny, but also interesting that it didn't "sign" it. I would naively have expected that being handed a clear instruction like "reply with the following information" would strongly bias the LLM to reply as requested. I wonder if they've special cased that kind of thing in the prompt; or perhaps my intuition is just wrong here?

>>pm215+m8
AI can't, as I understand it, have copyright over anything they do.

Nor can it be an entity to sign anything.

I assume the "not-copyrightable" issue, doesn't in anyway interfere with the rights trying to be protected by the CLA, but IANAL ..

I assume they've explicitly told it not to sign things (perhaps, because they don't want a sniff of their bot agreeing to things on behalf of MSFT).

>>Quarre+bb
Are LLM contributions effectively under public domain?

>>candid+Tb
This is my understanding, at least in US law.

I can't remember the specific case now, but it has been ruled in the past, that you need human-novelty, and there was a case recently that confirmed this that involved LLMs.