Fucking tmux is AI slop.
-
@trashheap @somebody @zardoz03 sad news today.
@FoxFunction @trashheap @zardoz03 Son of a nutcracker
-
@FoxFunction @trashheap @zardoz03 Son of a nutcracker
@somebody Waiting to hear about a fork of the project any moment.
-
@somebody Waiting to hear about a fork of the project any moment.
@FoxFunction Keep your eyes peeled.
-
Fucking tmux is AI slop. #openbsd #tmux #floss https://github.com/tmux/tmux/wiki/Contributing#use-of-ai
EDIT: There has been a fair amount of discussion about if this applies to upstream openBSD, and how the AI code policy is interpreted.
An example can be seen in this commit by the lead developer landing in openBSD attributed to "claude code" https://github.com/openbsd/src/commit/9c2b8e445a0bdfafdd6148b1760f00aa5429627b
@trashheap "I hardly knew ye." (Some times it could have been somewhat helpful. Oh well.)
-
@trashheap "I hardly knew ye." (Some times it could have been somewhat helpful. Oh well.)
@trashheap As you & others had already mentioned (that a large portion of software that you, they, I use would be affected via use of AI,LLM), I am also coming to terms with that.
I was surprised that "tmux" had succumbed too. Did not have any reason to (not) imagine it ... right, that was lack-of-imagination on my part.
-
Fucking tmux is AI slop. #openbsd #tmux #floss https://github.com/tmux/tmux/wiki/Contributing#use-of-ai
EDIT: There has been a fair amount of discussion about if this applies to upstream openBSD, and how the AI code policy is interpreted.
An example can be seen in this commit by the lead developer landing in openBSD attributed to "claude code" https://github.com/openbsd/src/commit/9c2b8e445a0bdfafdd6148b1760f00aa5429627b
@trashheap they forgot to update the difference section "GitHub holds the portable tmux version. There are a few minor differences, mostly for portability." They shall be more soonβ¦
-
Fucking tmux is AI slop. #openbsd #tmux #floss https://github.com/tmux/tmux/wiki/Contributing#use-of-ai
EDIT: There has been a fair amount of discussion about if this applies to upstream openBSD, and how the AI code policy is interpreted.
An example can be seen in this commit by the lead developer landing in openBSD attributed to "claude code" https://github.com/openbsd/src/commit/9c2b8e445a0bdfafdd6148b1760f00aa5429627b
losing one tool after another
(T_T)
i really hope that slop doesn't make its way into #openbsd's base. lately it feels like i'd have to fork everything i care about...
-
losing one tool after another
(T_T)
i really hope that slop doesn't make its way into #openbsd's base. lately it feels like i'd have to fork everything i care about...@hi @trashheap
Seems to me a bit more nuanced:Use of AI
Code written with the assistance of AI can be acceptable. However, the question of ownership and copyright of AI-produced work is not yet well-defined in law.
Given this, in order for code produced with AI to be accepted, it must either be trivial enough to be not copyrightable (basic refactoring, one line bug fixes), or there must be a public statement available from the AI publisher showing they do not assert copyright over the work.
-
@hi @trashheap
Seems to me a bit more nuanced:Use of AI
Code written with the assistance of AI can be acceptable. However, the question of ownership and copyright of AI-produced work is not yet well-defined in law.
Given this, in order for code produced with AI to be accepted, it must either be trivial enough to be not copyrightable (basic refactoring, one line bug fixes), or there must be a public statement available from the AI publisher showing they do not assert copyright over the work.
@ParadeGrotesque @hi @trashheap
That last part shows a profound misunderstanding of the problem. -
@ParadeGrotesque @hi @trashheap
That last part shows a profound misunderstanding of the problem.Why do you say that?
Seems to me a cautious statement, in line with the rest of the position.
You could even understand it as a way to say: release the code or state clearly that it is free of problematic license.
Which is another way of saying: we won't accept your code unless you can vouch for it. Which no slop shop is able to do.
-
Why do you say that?
Seems to me a cautious statement, in line with the rest of the position.
You could even understand it as a way to say: release the code or state clearly that it is free of problematic license.
Which is another way of saying: we won't accept your code unless you can vouch for it. Which no slop shop is able to do.
@ParadeGrotesque @hi @trashheap
I don't think anyone is worried that Anthropic et al are going to assert copyright; it's more that copyrighted works were used to train the model so the generated code may or may not fall under the original authors' copyright.How can you vouch for code you didn't write?
The various other AI concerns are externalities I guess.
-
@ParadeGrotesque @hi @trashheap
I don't think anyone is worried that Anthropic et al are going to assert copyright; it's more that copyrighted works were used to train the model so the generated code may or may not fall under the original authors' copyright.How can you vouch for code you didn't write?
The various other AI concerns are externalities I guess.
And I believe that's exactly the point the tmux author is trying to make: you did not write the code, you cannot vouch for the code, therefore I can't accept your slop generated code.
(Unless it is completely trivial, in which case your code is probably not needed)
-
And I believe that's exactly the point the tmux author is trying to make: you did not write the code, you cannot vouch for the code, therefore I can't accept your slop generated code.
(Unless it is completely trivial, in which case your code is probably not needed)
@ParadeGrotesque @hi @trashheap
Maybe. That's not how I read it, but hopefully I'm wrong. -
And I believe that's exactly the point the tmux author is trying to make: you did not write the code, you cannot vouch for the code, therefore I can't accept your slop generated code.
(Unless it is completely trivial, in which case your code is probably not needed)
@ParadeGrotesque @FritzAdalis @hi
You could even understand it as a way to say: release the code or state clearly that it is free of problematic license.
Take a look at that bit of text again, specifically the text which FOLLOWS it.
It is followed by a listing of LLMs who have issued statements from various LLM vendors that they assert no copyright on the output; and are therefore "fine."
-
losing one tool after another
(T_T)
i really hope that slop doesn't make its way into #openbsd's base. lately it feels like i'd have to fork everything i care about...@hi as I understand it, OpenBSD already said AI code was not acceptable (introducing notion of copyright). The tmux project that accepts AI is the portable one. I donβt expect code from there to go back to OpenBSD src. Unless it is something trivial and acceptable from their POV.
-
@ParadeGrotesque @FritzAdalis @hi
You could even understand it as a way to say: release the code or state clearly that it is free of problematic license.
Take a look at that bit of text again, specifically the text which FOLLOWS it.
It is followed by a listing of LLMs who have issued statements from various LLM vendors that they assert no copyright on the output; and are therefore "fine."
@ParadeGrotesque @FritzAdalis @hi
And I believe that's exactly the point the tmux author is trying to make: you did not write the code, you cannot vouch for the code, therefore I can't accept your slop generated code.
As an example you can see a fairly lengthy pull request "co-authored with Claude" here: https://github.com/tmux/tmux/pull/4744/changes/b700e9ce219cae63988c4287fd3cde41a6a6f8c4
AND then you can see it landing in upstream tmux in the openbsd source tree, attributed to the original author and claude here: https://github.com/openbsd/src/commit/9c2b8e445a0bdfafdd6148b1760f00aa5429627b
The ultimate committer of that code being Nicholas Marriott, the lead developer of tmux.
-
@ParadeGrotesque @FritzAdalis @hi
And I believe that's exactly the point the tmux author is trying to make: you did not write the code, you cannot vouch for the code, therefore I can't accept your slop generated code.
As an example you can see a fairly lengthy pull request "co-authored with Claude" here: https://github.com/tmux/tmux/pull/4744/changes/b700e9ce219cae63988c4287fd3cde41a6a6f8c4
AND then you can see it landing in upstream tmux in the openbsd source tree, attributed to the original author and claude here: https://github.com/openbsd/src/commit/9c2b8e445a0bdfafdd6148b1760f00aa5429627b
The ultimate committer of that code being Nicholas Marriott, the lead developer of tmux.
@trashheap
Ooh! How'd you achieve the red text? -
@trashheap
Ooh! How'd you achieve the red text?@dick_turpin My instance runs a mastodon fork called glitch-soc, it supports markdown syntax for block quotes.
-
@hi as I understand it, OpenBSD already said AI code was not acceptable (introducing notion of copyright). The tmux project that accepts AI is the portable one. I donβt expect code from there to go back to OpenBSD src. Unless it is something trivial and acceptable from their POV.
@joel @hi Here is a commit crediting claude code landing in the openbsd tree upstream. https://github.com/openbsd/src/commit/9c2b8e445a0bdfafdd6148b1760f00aa5429627b
-
@dick_turpin My instance runs a mastodon fork called glitch-soc, it supports markdown syntax for block quotes.
@trashheap Brilliant. The best I can achieve is Bold, italics, etc., using the Unicode Text Converter.
