🍑💳

I don’t have any experience with Google Fiber, but I was bummed when Google Domains got sold off, I forgot to whom. Google Domains was so simple. No nonsense.

What’s the new instance? I must have missed it.

RIP lemmynsfw.

America is not a monolith, one group could say one statement and another say the other.

Or better yet, try to find why they’re using it and help fill those gaps by contributing.

The strictest license in the training set is definitely just the normal copyright protections, which is more strict than copyleft.

Edit: explanation, this is because everything is inherently copyrighted. You have rights to protections. So you’re forgoing some of those protective rights by licensing it out.

I guess that’s sort of the disconnect for me. I’m imagining a world where the maintainer, instead of using AI and signing the commits off that they did, that instead they were putting a Nazi slogan in every commit message. My opinion would be different. I wouldn’t have this middle of the road sort of “maybe you should try to actually get them to change what they’re doing instead of shaming them.” Hell, if that were the case I’d probably join in too, or at least throw a thumbs down on their defense of themselves. And I’m not trying to compare AI usage to genocide or say that folks view them as equivalent, I’m just saying that there are topics where I do think going fully on the offensive are warranted.

Maybe I really should self reflect on that, because I am a firm believer that protests aren’t meant to be comfortable. Maybe me saying “they shouldn’t insult a volunteer on an issue tracker” is the same as people complaining about “politics in football” by saying Kaepernick shouldn’t have been taking a knee during the national anthem, in some ways.

Yeah, I’m interested to see how it turns out. Realistically I don’t think we’ll see models training on GPL code making the model or it’s output “GPL’ed” because (I think, but I could be mistaken) there’s already been a court case about training models on copyrighted content and the court ruled that it was okay. The GPL, while extremely restrictive, is still more permissive than the default “all rights reserved” approach of copyright. That is to say, if courts ruled that copyrighted content in models is fine they’d also rule that copyleft content in models is fine. (Which sucks, and not really something I’m sure I agree with, but I’m also not a lawyer or a judge.)

My understanding is that, regardless of it was AI or not, machine output cannot be copyrighted. I’m not sure where the line is and how much tweaking you’d need to do to for it to suddenly become something you’re protected under copyright. With things like code, as opposed to images, I think we’ll likely see that devs get copyright over it. Because I think most of the time they’re tweaking it some. Generally with image generation I don’t think folks are tweaking the output, unless they themselves are an artist, and for the most part most artists I’ve seen are more opposed to AI than devs. But who knows? It’ll probably take someone copying code that was created by AI and the creator/prompter having to backup that what they did was enough to grant them protection under copyright law. But by that point, I’m really talking out of my depth, this is just a guess.

My most realistic outlook on it is fairly pessimistic. I think model creators will still be able to use copyrighted and copyleft works however they see fit and I think for all practical purposes most folks using generators will likely be tweaking or prompting creatively enough in some way to successfully argue that the result is something they made using the AI as a tool rather than something the computer just generated on its own.

I don’t really think there’s a problem with saying this sort of thing about devs who use AI if you believe all AI code usage is bad. I’m only saying that if you actually want them to stop using AI instead of just expressing your disdain then there are better approaches. Opening an issue to insult a volunteer developer on their personal project will not get the change you want to see.

I’m pretty sure they don’t “guarantee software integrity” as it is. At least not in any meaningful way.

What do you think is more likely from devs who use AI who see this?

1. They will stop using AI.
2. They will stop saying when they use AI, like this one did.

Does it support Bluetooth?

Do they think MMS is magically invisible?

Proton even allows you to send them cash money for the service.

What if I buy Signal Nitro

Yeah, that’s sort of my gripe with it. If you genuinely believe all AI code is bad (which is fine, not saying that’s a “wrong” opinion) maybe try to help the volunteers instead of just insulting them on an issue tracker.

But as you can see, the maintainer didn’t stop using them and will also now not disclose which commits have them. Humans are emotional creatures and part of being rational is acknowledging that. Folks can be critical of AI usage while phrasing the issue more tactfully and would likely see more success when doing so.

Maybe, I don’t know much about this tool or their practices. I only meant that it was factual that they were mentioning which commits had AI generated code in them.

Hence the past tense. I think it was pretty petty to do this.