431–440 of 504 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
... you think It was good time? Not being able to publish anything without sifting through all the libs licences? Remembering legalese, jurisprudence, edge cases, on top of everything else? MIT became ubiquitous because it gives us peace of mind
You have to go through all the dependencies anyway, to roughly judge their quality, and the activity of their maintainers. Quickly looking at the license doesn't take any more effort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it is not reasonable to presume code generated by any large language model is "tainted code." What does that even mean? It sounds like a Weird Al parody of the song "Tainted Love."
“Taint” has been a term of art in Open Source for decades. That you don’t know this reveals your ignorance, not any sort of cleverness. LLMs regurgitate their training data. If they’re generating code, they’re not modeling the syntax of a language to solve a problem, they’re reproducing code they ingested, code that is covered by copyright. Just regurgitating that code via an LLM rather than directly from your editor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Taint” has been a term of art in Open Source for decades. That you don’t know this reveals your ignorance, not any sort of cleverness. LLMs regurgitate their training data. If they’re generating code, they’re not modeling the syntax of a language to solve a problem, they’re reproducing code they ingested, code that is covered by copyright. Just regurgitating that code via an LLM rather than directly from your editor…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> what else are you going to lie about? Nothing? Everything? Does it fucking matter? Assigning trust across a boundary like this is stupid, and that’s my point. Oh, would you just accept my blatantly, verbatim copied-from-another-codebase-and-relicensed PR just because I said “I solemnly swear this is not blatantly, verbatim copied from another codebase and relicensed”? That’s on you for stupidly assigning any trust…
> Oh, would you just accept my blatantly, verbatim copied-from-another-codebase-and-relicensed PR just because I said “I solemnly swear this is not blatantly, verbatim copied from another codebase and relicensed”? At that point you've proven intention, meaning you'll get the chance to argue your viewpoint in front of a judge.
Sure, put out an international search warrant for xXImADogOnTheInternet86Xx.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I think you'll find the luddites to be a more informative historical analogy. A new tool arrives in an industry staffed by craftsmen, providing capital a lever to raise profits at the expense of quality. Is it surprising that worker co-ops would choose not to pull that lever?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I am talking about Opus 4.6 and Codex 5.3 here, at high+ effort settings So you have to burn tokens at the highest available settings to even have a chance of ending up with code that's not completely terrible (and then only in very specific domains), but of course you then have to review it all and fix all the mistakes it made. So where's the gain exactly? The proper goal is for those 500 lines to be almost always…
You really do need to try the latest ones. You can’t extrapolate from your previous experiences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Project maintainers will always have the right to decide how to maintain their projects, and "owe" nothing to no one. That being said, to outright ban a technology in 2026 on pure "vibes" is not something I'd say is reasonable. Others have already commented that it's likely unenforceable, but I'd also say it's unreasonable for the sake of utility. It leaves stuff on the table in a time where they really shouldn't. Th…
> That being said, to outright ban a technology in 2026 on pure "vibes" is not something I'd say is reasonable. The response to a large enough amount of data is always vibes. You cannot analyze it all so you offload it to your intuition. > It leaves stuff on the table in a time where they really shouldn't. Things like documentation tracking, regression tracking, security, feature parity, etc. can all be enhanced with…
This may be an unpopular opinion, but I fully support the no-AI stance. AI-generated code belongs nowhere in an operating system or it's low level/kernel components. Especially considering the shear amount of power the kernel has over the machine. The last thing you want is an AI-generated bug crashing systems because it flipped a bit that is reserved or silently corrupting memory (or worse) because it ran in kernel…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Oh, would you just accept my blatantly, verbatim copied-from-another-codebase-and-relicensed PR just because I said “I solemnly swear this is not blatantly, verbatim copied from another codebase and relicensed”? At that point you've proven intention, meaning you'll get the chance to argue your viewpoint in front of a judge.
> At that point you've proven intention, meaning you'll get the chance to argue your viewpoint in front of a judge. Sure, put out an international search warrant for xXImADogOnTheInternet86Xx.
Many major projects now require a signed DCO with a real name. That can be a nickname if you have a reasonable online presence under that name, but generally it has to identify you as an individual.
So you wouldn't sign it as "xXImADogOnTheInternet86Xx", but as "Tom Forbes (orf)".
And even if there won't be direct legal consequences, it'd certainly affect your ability to contribute to this or other projects in the future.