Makes perfect sense for a space rocket company.

Also, there’s no way I’m letting Mecha Hitler write my code.

You ever see Transformers?

This looks nothing like AI slop. It’s the bottom half of the door.

Sweet. Gonna blow all my money on new Steam hardware this year.

I think we’re old.

Not Tim Apple!

4.19 would be pretty nice. It’s like 5.49 here.

This is so dumb. Of course you can run an app coded by your friend. Either your friend can pay $100 a year to notarize their app, or you can pay $100 a year to run his app as a developer. Couldn’t be easier.

Edit: apparently I need to add /s. I figured this was a stupid enough take that it was obvious.

Good lord. That dude’s packing a fire hose.

You replied to me, man. xD

Ah, ok. This is a conversation about Linux, so that doesn’t apply. Linux is open source, so it wouldn’t matter if someone wanted to enforce a EULA, anyone else could just take the source and do what they want with it.

Linux is open source.

Generating code costs a lot of money, as does the expertise to review the code. People aren’t going to want to spend the many millions of dollars to do that when they could use a GPL kernel. Of course if the kernel is not only free, but basically public domain, it solves all of their problems. They can modify it and keep those modifications closed source, the complete antithesis of what the GPL stands for.

Sure, but if it’s open source, I can just take that code without agreeing to your contract. Since it’s public domain, I can do whatever I want with it. You can only enforce a contract if I agree to it.

So what happens thirty years from now when 95% of the kernel code is AI generated? It’ll be a lot easier to rewrite the parts that aren’t, and have a fully closed source kernel that you can use without following the GPL.

I mean, yeah, you can make the argument that owning the copyrights to all of the code in your project isn’t important. I don’t agree, but that’s certainly a valid stance. Apparently the Linux maintainers are on your side. That makes me sad. Copyright ownership of the things I produce is very important to me.

Wow, what an atrocious analogy. So, you just can’t determine what brand of keyboard someone uses, period. When someone uses an AI, there will be certain patterns that are somewhat more common in their code. Their code will also look different than their previous code. It also tends to produce very large commits. You can also ask them why they did certain things and see how they answer. So you might not be 100% accurate, but there are ways to tell when someone is using AI.

Do you want to explain to me what, in those two paragraphs, means that the use of spell checkers and LLMs is equivalent with regard to copyrightability? It seems like those paragraphs make it clear that the use of spell checkers is not the same as LLMs.

The policy I use bans “generative AI model” output. Generative AI is a pretty well defined term:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_AI

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/generative AI

If you have trouble determining whether something is a generative AI model, you can usually just look up how it is described in the promotional materials or on Wikipedia.

Type: Large language model, Generative pre-trained transformer

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_(language_model)

I never said it violates GPL to include public domain code. I’m not sure where you got that from. What I said is that public domain code can’t really be released under the GPL. You can try, but it’s not enforceable. As in, you can release it under that license, but I can still do whatever I want with it, license be damned, because it’s public domain.

I did that with this vibe coded project:

https://github.com/hperrin/gnata

I just took it and rereleased it as pubic domain, because that’s what it is anyway.

So why invite them to?

Nobody can verify that the output of an LLM isn’t from its training data except those with access to its training data.