Yes, but to sue for infringement, you must register the work with the Copyright Office, and the registration must specify clearly what's AI and what's human-created, and only the latter is protected.
As far as I know, if humans are having a discussion about the structure of the code and deliberately making changes (such as in github or on a forum) that represents human creativity. If you hit a button and then make literally no changes to the output then that might be different.
It's already been established by court ruling and enshrined in Copyright Office regulations, that you can claim copyright on a mixed AI and human-authored work, but to sue for damages you must register the work, and the registration must clearly specify which parts are AI generated and which are human generated. Copyright can only be claimed on the declared human generated portion of the work.
I have found myself wondering a lot lately about the alternative universe where all the effort and resources devoted to developing and using AI coding and debugging agents were instead simply dedicated to fuzzing human-generated code. How would the code quality and total usefulness of the results have compared?
It should have been possible to build a new LLVM alternative, a new chromium like browser and some other similar things imo and that would have been definitely more impactful for me.
It is unimaginable how many static analysis tools or fuzzers could have been created with a fraction of LLM investment too.
For example honggfuzz was created by a single engineer possibly in less than a years’s worth time
The best carbon capture device is the ocean, and for the last 10 years or so huge amounts of free-floating sargassum seaweed have grown in warm ocean waters around the world. Nobody is certain why the sargassum has appeared in such volume lately, but it's plausible to speculate that increased CO2 in ocean water plays a role. As far as I can see the only remotely efficient way to sequester carbon at scale is to leverage the ocean by gathering the seaweed and dumping it on marginal or desert land, both to trap the carbon and fertilize the soil, thus promoting additional carbon-binding plant growth.
> Nobody is certain why the sargassum has appeared in such volume lately
For the record 2025 volumes specifically, the ABC article notes that sudden phosphorus flushes as a result of multi-year drought-hit watersheds finally being flushed out likely contributed. Ocean ecology at scale is usually highly correlated with nutrient density.
As a layman on this topic, but assuming the gathering requires fossil fuel and probably lots of it given the scale, is it feasible to do the gathering in a net negative carbon way?
I feel like anything I hear about that teases net negative sequestration at scale eventually falls apart or is found to be akin to a perpetual energy machine that eventually is debunked.
Shortly after git became popular, the Subversion team released a tool that enabled replicating a SVN repository or any subset to a local independent repository, which could be used for local development and re-synced to the main repository at any time.
