> Shinwell also consulted AI regarding the copyright, which told him that “I conclude that no code was copied from oxcaml” and gave reasons. Unconvinced, maintainer Gabriel Scherer said “the fact that the tool that produced the code attributes its copyright to a real human is a clear sign that something is an issue.”
This is inaccurate, Mark Shinwell didn't participate to the discussion, and if he somehow consulted AI, it is not mentioned anywhere in the discussion. Actually, the AI analysis was performed by the PR submitter.
The topic of the article has been discussed in another HN submission:
This is AI blog slop about someone submitting AI slop merge requests without reading any of it, instead expecting maintainers to do it. Quite the irony.
> Shinwell also consulted AI regarding the copyright, which told him that “I conclude that no code was copied from oxcaml” and gave reasons. Unconvinced, maintainer Gabriel Scherer said “the fact that the tool that produced the code attributes its copyright to a real human is a clear sign that something is an issue.”
This is inaccurate, Mark Shinwell didn't participate to the discussion, and if he somehow consulted AI, it is not mentioned anywhere in the discussion. Actually, the AI analysis was performed by the PR submitter.
The topic of the article has been discussed in another HN submission:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46039274