391–400 of 454 posts
I like that this policy is more specific than the Debian policy, and not overly strict as to include contributions that are not generated by LLMs, but may be the result of a conversation with LLMs. It also helps that the policy is inherited from the GNU org, way simpler than having each project have their own specific policy. Gnood job
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the point of doing this? Why do people do this sort of thing? I'm genuinely puzzled.
Which — the policy, or the AI spam the policy targets?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's to hoping LLVM will define it differently.
LLVM defined its AI policy several months ago: https://llvm.org/docs/AIToolPolicy.html (There's already some consternation that it's too permissive.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had human authored GCC patches that added Linux system call builtins to GCC. I was in the middle of learning how GCC's code generation worked when my laptop fell onto the floor and my hard drive crashed, leading to the loss of the work. This was years ago, and you can even find some emails from me on the mailing list defending the feature. AI helped me successfully restart that patch set, and take it much further t…
Can't you already do that with inline assembly pretty easily?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't speak for others but I'm just tired of hearing far-fetched copyright concerns that mask the real motivation (ideological opposition to LLMs).
There is nothing far fetched about this. GNU is an ideological organization and their ideology is "free software." Free software exists because of the copyright system. Now imagine if someone can just fork your GPL licensed software and distribute it under an incompatible license, and when you go to court, the judge tells you to punch sand because your codebase is all AI generated and therefore not copyrighted. I am…
I don’t think taking copyright off the table harms the practice of sharing code. They will still try to use trade secrets to restrict code sharing and contracts, but using GNU software won’t be stopped. It will reduce the ability to sue people not sharing their modifications but that was always outside the mainstream, and places like AWS, Apple, and Google find ways around it anyways since it doesn’t cover hosted services or non-linked code.
The core stream of openly developed and exponentially improving software does not need copyright to win if it cannot be sued for copyright violation.
Now I suppose some OpenAI lawyer is trying to find a way to sue humans for copyright infringement while keeping them safe from lawsuits, so we can worry about that attack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't you already do that with inline assembly pretty easily?
You generally don't have to, the Linux system calls are in the standard library anyway. Having GCC builtins for them is of questionable utility at best. Even if the GP poster submitted these patches that may or may not exist, I'm not sure they would ever get merged.
Nope. Not every system call is available. It took years before glibc got getrandom, for example. Others are straight up not supported because they break glibc's internals.
One could argue that it's always possible use the generic syscall function, but then what's the point of glibc? You can just get rid of it and use minimal shims, or compiler builtins, ideally.
> Having GCC builtins for them is of questionable utility at best.
It's useful if you're writing freestanding Linux programs. Great for eliminating all of the dependencies and writing minimal applications that target Linux directly. I wrote an entire lisp interpreter on top of nothing but Linux system calls.
> Even if the GP poster submitted these patches that may or may not exist, I'm not sure they would ever get merged.
Honestly I'm not sure either. The GCC maintainers didn't seem particularly convinced on the mailing list. It's the reason why I didn't bother to restart this work until years later. Claude made it easy enough to do it all over again.
Equally easy to drop. I'm gradually switching to Rust anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You generally don't have to, the Linux system calls are in the standard library anyway. Having GCC builtins for them is of questionable utility at best. Even if the GP poster submitted these patches that may or may not exist, I'm not sure they would ever get merged.
But if you are the one writing the standard library, it's still easy. You can write asm volatile("syscall" : a bunch of stuff telling the compiler which values to put in which registers)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We almost need a proof of human check. Before submitting a PR, you must find and paste the actual lyrics of a random song as challenge-response. Lyrics seem to have the strongest safeguards out of everything. (Try it! On some APIs, you might see moderation/refusal behavior you don't see with anything else, even cyber)
Basically, any copyrighted material should do. This only covers not ablated LLMs though. Ultimately, a web of trust where someone whose humanity and integrity you trust AT THE COST OF YOUR OWN INTEGRITY vouches for an individual is likely going to be the most reliable way. New open source contributors will require proof of humanity. On top of this, you would want an expirable proof of humanity to reduce account takeo…
Anything illegal, for that matter. Crime as proof of humanity. Fun future!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No? 1) Someone re-licenses GCC under a non-GPL license. 2) EFF sues them, to stop the behaviour 3) Court tells EFF that they have no standing to sue because LLM generated content has no copyright Obviously this happening would be in the future after someone translated GCC to Rust with LLMs or something.
> Someone re-licenses GCC under a non-GPL license. A pointless act since code is now free. The GPL exists to ensure code freedom in an era when code was expensive. Yes I'm aware that the meaning of "free" is a bit conflated here, but the point stands.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI psychosis seems to be on all sides of the debate. We've truly lost our moderate speech and the ability to discuss.
There has never been a time when open source isn't full of flame wars of one flavor or the other. Are we going to diagnose people with syetemd psychosis or X11 psychosis next?