honestly if the acceptability of using ai-generated code in a project governed by a foss license is dependent solely on the "legal copyright status" of ai-generated code, the license in question should be chucked into the fire
4
Replies
5
Boosts
obviously, from a practical perspective, legal compliance is important. but the actual goal has to be fostering software that sustainably empowers people, and you can't do that with ai-generated code, regardless of its copyright status
or maybe let's think about it a different way. why does software need to change? let's be optimistic and say that maybe 1% of changes to software are to add useful new features and fix actual implementation bugs. 99% of changes are to support new/buggy hardware that only exists because of planned obsolescence (or to pad transistor counts so chip manufacturers can keep number going up) or to support some new scheme to monetize computer use (surveillance, app stores, gambling in various forms)
@aparrish The experience of using Linux does not change one whit for multiple decades at a time, and for some reason we're expect to accept that continually rewriting the underlying code, for no externally visible change, is something the user either wants or should have to make sacrifices to receive. Same with fricking Firefox.
We had to upgrade to Wayland. That was non-optional. There are pre-slop Waylands.
If I got a 2022 Linux distribution LTS that is LTSed for 30 years, I'd be okay.
*even if* genai were a good way to do those 1% fixes (and it's not), the use of genai *directly drives* the system that creates the 99%. you're making your own busywork for no reason *while* destroying the environment and handing your agency over to fascists and blah blah blah. self-defeating. yuck
