271–280 of 566 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because that's impossible. Any "robot" that can generate code must be trained on massive amounts of code, most of which is open source.
And how are you supposed to guarantee equivalent functionality by analyzing "README files, API docs, and type definitions"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We are all making a continual and ongoing grave error > Blindly translating those centuries of laws into rigid, free enforcement is a terrible idea for everyone. I understand your point that changing the enforcement changes how the law is "felt" even though on the paper the law has not changed. And I think it makes sense to review and potentially revise the laws when enforcement methods change. But in the specific…
For one thing, the speed limit is intentionally set 5-10mph too low, specifically to make it easier to prove guilt when someone breaks the "real" speed limit.
While it is true that many people do speed, that doesn't make their speeding "the real speed limit".
This is extremely good satire. Question is, why hasn't anyone done this for real? There's enough people with the right knowledge and who would love to destroy open source for personal gain. Is it that this kind of service would be so open to litigation that it would need a lot of money upfront? Or is someone already working on this, and we're just living out the last good days of OSS?
There's a lot of things you could do to be malicious towards other people with minimal effort, yet strangely few people do it. Virtually everyone has morals, and most people's are quite compatible with society (hence we have a society) even if small perturbations in foundational morals sometimes lead to seemingly large discrepancies in resultant actions You need the right kind of person, in the right life circumstanc…
It's the difference between a developer taking a job at Palantir out of college because nobody had a better offer, and a guy spending years in his basement designing "Immigrant Spotter+" in the hopes of selling it to the government. Sure, they're both evil, but lots of people pick the first thing, and hardly anybody does the second.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
lol - it's literally called malus but I guess that's only an obvious giveaway in retrospect
It's perfectly realistic! E.g. Palantir, the surveillance analytics company named after the magic orb that purports to let you remotely view anything you want, but actually allows its creator to view you while manipulating you by selectively showing some things and not others.
https://github.com/chardet/chardet/issues/327
I really got fooled here for a second, but the unfortunate reality is that people will try this soon, and someone will have to litigate this, if open source is to survive, which will take years and millions of dollars to resolve
Earlier quoted context omitted.
lol - it's literally called malus but I guess that's only an obvious giveaway in retrospect
It's perfectly realistic! E.g. Palantir, the surveillance analytics company named after the magic orb that purports to let you remotely view anything you want, but actually allows its creator to view you while manipulating you by selectively showing some things and not others.
The post claims (tongue-in-cheek, of course) that their customer owns the resulting code. But that's not true! According to binding precedent, works created by an AI are not protected by copyright. NO ONE OWNS THEM!!! I think maybe this is a good thing, but honestly, it's hard to tell.
An interesting aspect of this, especially their blog post ( https://malus.sh/blog.html ), is that it acknowledges a strain in our legal system I've been observing for decades, but don't think the legal system or people in general have dealt with, which is that generally costs matter . A favorite example of mine is speed limits. There is a difference between "putting up a sign that says 55 mph and walking away", "putt…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's perfectly realistic! E.g. Palantir, the surveillance analytics company named after the magic orb that purports to let you remotely view anything you want, but actually allows its creator to view you while manipulating you by selectively showing some things and not others.
Especially given that a popular open source project recently tried to do exactly that. https://github.com/chardet/chardet/issues/327 I really got fooled here for a second, but the unfortunate reality is that people will try this soon, and someone will have to litigate this, if open source is to survive, which will take years and millions of dollars to resolve