with a long tail of grumpy holdouts who adhere to free software principles
Nothing in the core free software principles - namely, the four freedoms - actually concerns the development process and tools used - or copyright. It’s all about what you can do with the software.
The GPL is more of a “hack” that “perverts” copyright to enforce free software principles - because that was the tool available, not because the people who wrote it really liked intellectual property.
Was broken last I checked - as in, would regularly just crash.
Having to import my tariff management solution is a critical national security risk. Needs to be built-in. PEP soon, please?
What a great way to reduce external dependencies and mitigate supply chain attacks!
They’re already also offering 6-day certs, so capacity isn’t a problem.
How does it compare to NixOS?
I’d be very skeptical of claims that Debian maintainers actually audit the code of each piece of software they package. Perhaps they make some brief reviews, but actually scrutinizing every line for hidden backdoors is just not feasible.
Any accessibility service will also see the “hidden links”, and while a blind person with a screen reader will notice if they wonder off into generated pages, it will waste their time too. Especially if they don’t know about such “feature” they’ll be very confused.
Also, I don’t know about you, but I absolutely have a use for crawling X, Google maps, Reddit, YouTube, and getting information from there without interacting with the service myself.
I would love to think so. But the word “verified” suggests more.
That makes me think, perhaps, you might be able to set it to exec("stuff") or True…
while allowing legitimate users and verified crawlers to browse normally.
What is a “verified crawler” though? What I worry about is, is it only big companies like Google that are allowed to have them now?
I agree that it’s difficult to enforce such a requirement on individuals. That said, I don’t agree that nobody cares for the content they post. If they have “something cool they made with AI generation” - then it’s not a big deal to have to mark it as AI-generated.
An intelligence service monitors social media. They may as well have said, “The sky is blue.”
More interesting is,
Sharing as a force multiplier
– OpenAI
Do you know of a provider is actually private? The few privacy policies I checked all had something like “We might keep some of your data for some time for anti-abuse or other reasons”…
Too bad that’s based on macros. A full preprocessor could require that all keywords and names in each scope form a prefix code, and then allow us to freely concatenate them.
It works fine for me on Hyprland.
That is why I use just int main(){...} without arguments instead.
I don’t think any kind of “poisoning” actually works. It’s well known by now that data quality is more important than data quantity, so nobody just feeds training data in indiscriminately. At best it would hamper some FOSS AI researchers that don’t have the resources to curate a dataset.
The fact is, currently, AI can’t write good code. I’m sure that at some point in the future they will - but we’re not there yet, and probably have some years still.
Imagine at some point in the future, where an AI can program any piece of software you want for you, and do it well. At that point, the value of code itself will be minimal. If you keep your code proprietary, I’ll just get the AI to re-implement the functionality anew and publish it.
Therefore, all code will be permissive open source. There would be no point in keeping anything proprietary, and also no point in applying copyleft. But at this point the copyleft “hack” would simply be unnecessary, so permissive open source would be just as good.
Until then, me not using AI doesn’t in any way prevent others from training AI on my code. So I just don’t see training on my code as a valid reason to avoid it. I don’t use AI currently - but that’s for entirely pragmatic reasons: I’m not yet happy with the code it generates.