The Jqwik Anti-AI Affair

Post by retr0rocket » Tue, Jun 16, 2026, 1:45 PM UTC

yusefnapora wrote: post #79

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"it's just text on stdout" There is an intent to cause harm and a reasonable expectation of achieving that intent. And at least if the github issues are to be believe, a successful actuation of the intent in at least a few cases. The delivery mechanism is interesting for its novelty but I don't think it fundamentally changes how the library should be classified. Conditional malware, maybe?

The project README has explicitly asked users not to use LLMs for years before adding this "malware" to the output. Since LLM users seem incapable of understanding consent, apparently a more firm reminder was needed. As mentioned in the blog post, if your system is susceptible to this kind of "attack," what is your plan when someone with actual malicious intent gets involved?

Post by thin_carapace » Sat, Jun 20, 2026, 1:00 AM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #92

thin_carapace wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'user data' in this case refers to your copy of his software. how should software react when its explicit prerequisites are not followed? should software do nothing and allow incorrect usage, therefore potentially leading to unaccounted issues down the track? do we complain that adobe is petulant for restricting product access when license conditions aren't met?

Does Adobe quietly erase data if you use their software in violation of their license agreement? Last time someone tried something like that, people here were all up in arms about it. I should also note that there's nothing in the license for the software in question that says that it cannot be used by AI.