Technology

Note that Debian has had a purist approach to intellectual property, and the common sense practical view that 'obviously' it has to be ok or else the entire industry would be hopelessly screwed by now, I could see them trying to stick to their guns.

There are still court cases flying about and so far the focus has been by rights holders versus the AI platforms. Those have thus far been pretty favorable for the platform holders, but there's a catch.

The platform defense has been that "sure, we trained on copyrighted works and sure, the model can produce copyright violations, but when a violation happens, it is the fault of the operator and they should be on the hook for violations". So it remains possible that someone comes after an AI user for making a knockoff, and given the context, the AI user might be making a violation without even knowing they are.

So accepting a contribution under GPL might get them in hot water because some company decides that the submission looks too much like their proprietary code, and they can draw a line from their codebase being open to AI ingest to it landing in a codebase.

Sadly, this is a bigger risk for open source than closed source, as the closed source is harder to detect such things.

Banning feces from food is a crazy thing to do. feces is just a nutrient source.

I agree partially: banning AI generated code is a little nuts at this point.

BUT it isn't "just a tool". No mere tool requires tech companies to set up illegal energy plants. No mere tool requires the construction of data centers that consume more power than whole cities. No mere tool requires the acquisition and destruction of untold amounts of rare books. No mere tool requires trillions of dollars in funding without any proof that there will ever be an ROI. No mere tool requires a money furnace to operate. No mere tool requires constant, costly maintenance and development so it doesn't get out of date. No mere tool requires hundreds of billions of dollars of investment only to see little in terms of quantifiable improvement in the tool. No mere tool requires constant chirping about fictional possibilities of super human intelligence and singularities in order to stick around.

No hammer is built with the promise of replacing the carpenter. No pencil is built with the promise of replacing the architect.

AI is much more than a mere tool. It's a fucking cult of autocomplete enthusiasts.

Banning all of everything is usually a crazy thing to do.

But it happens when absolute shitnozzles who don't understand how to do or possess X responsibly expect to be able to have and use X however they want while socializing their personal screw-ups onto other people who never asked for their BS.

When the hype dies and functional and proven AI tools are in the hands of people who can use them responsibly instead of trend-chasers with no discipline, maybe they can start to crack the gate open.

I can name one other thing in this thread thats just a tool