👀 … https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2026/apr/15/eternal-november-generative-ai-llm/ …my colleague Denver Gingerich writes: newcomers' extensive reliance on LLM-backed generative AI is comparable to the Eternal September onslaught to USENET in 1993.
-
Nor does @ossguy claim in his post that “slop commits from people #LLM-backed gen #AI are good”. I think people are reading it as if he said it, but he didn't.
He's putting out an olive branch to people who have been lambasted by the #FOSS community for months. Maybe they'll take it, maybe they won't.
But peaceful negotiation is better than a protracted, hateful argument.
@bkuhn @silverwizard @ossguy @karen @josh I love you all. I truly do. But I think this is a massive misstep.
-
@bkuhn @silverwizard @ossguy @karen @josh I love you all. I truly do. But I think this is a massive misstep.
Feel free to share what you would do in our place. I am genuinely interested.
But talking with the people sending #slop patches is the best way to resolve the escalating crisis.
Shouting that it's all horrible is not working.
-
Nor does @ossguy claim in his post that “slop commits from people #LLM-backed gen #AI are good”. I think people are reading it as if he said it, but he didn't.
He's putting out an olive branch to people who have been lambasted by the #FOSS community for months. Maybe they'll take it, maybe they won't.
But peaceful negotiation is better than a protracted, hateful argument.
@bkuhn @karen @josh @ossguy I think the problem is one of not really looking at the conversation as it's happening. It's why my post was focused on a car analogy. Even if those people have good intention, the tools they're bringing in destroy the community.
I think that the problem is that the idea of not accepting people who are using the tools feels like an attempt to smuggle in the tools. If someone has chosen to use claude code for a while and now wants to contribute helpfully - fine. But how many of those people are there? Is there a cohort of LLM users who want to learn coding skills? Or are they wanting to *contribute* using their *LLM skills*?
I think Denver doesn't prove the existence of the cohort so is being read as attempting to defend something else.
-
@bkuhn @ossguy The surprising thing about saying "seriously consider cautiously and carefully incorporating their workflows with ours" is that it doesn't address at all my *biggest* fear: the copyright status of LLM generated contributions seems currently unsettled.
I know there's been assertions to the contrary floating around: the Supreme Court deferred to a lower court in the US. However that is not the same thing as the Supreme Court making a specific decision. And internationally, the copyright situation of output is even murkier... it will take a long time for this to settle.
Does Conservancy not think this is the case? I would be surprised if so, but perhaps you all have an interpretation that I am not currently aware of.
If there *is* concern, then we hit a serious risk: we may be seeing many contributions with legal status which has *yet to be determined* entering seasoned codebases. And this worries me a lot.
-
You may not realize this is a disingenuous answer.
I've actually looked into how to become a UK citizen (or even get the right to work for an entity in another country and live in the UK) and it is extremely difficult.
-
Talking with them is good. Helping to educate them is good. Making it sound as if what they are doing is okay is *not*.
There is a big difference between offering an olive branch to people who *might* be productive contributors in the *future*, and telling them that what they're doing *now* is okay.
The best AI policy remains "do not contribute any LLM-written content, ever". You have published a post that makes it easier for people who oppose such policies to cite your "olive branch" when arguing against it, and it is not obvious from your post that you do not want that to happen.
I don't want to see people *abused* for using LLMs. I do want them to understand that what they're doing is not okay and not welcome and not a positive contribution. -
@bkuhn @cwebber @ossguy Yeah, easier said than done, but goes to show that there's no common approach to GenAI copyright across countries. It might give the UK a small competitive advantage if/when the bubble pops and the House of Lords advice is heeded by the Commons, as in, don't suspend author protections because of specious arguments from big tech.
-
@bkuhn @karen @josh @ossguy I think the problem is one of not really looking at the conversation as it's happening. It's why my post was focused on a car analogy. Even if those people have good intention, the tools they're bringing in destroy the community.
I think that the problem is that the idea of not accepting people who are using the tools feels like an attempt to smuggle in the tools. If someone has chosen to use claude code for a while and now wants to contribute helpfully - fine. But how many of those people are there? Is there a cohort of LLM users who want to learn coding skills? Or are they wanting to *contribute* using their *LLM skills*?
I think Denver doesn't prove the existence of the cohort so is being read as attempting to defend something else.
@ossguy's post isn't intended to be a *proof*, it's intended to be an *invitation to a discussion*.
So much of your response presupposes motivations of large groups of people that are not talking in a productive way (at the moment) with the FOSS community.
All of your questions are *open questions* that we should *talk* with others to get the answers to.
-
@bkuhn @cwebber @ossguy Yeah, easier said than done, but goes to show that there's no common approach to GenAI copyright across countries. It might give the UK a small competitive advantage if/when the bubble pops and the House of Lords advice is heeded by the Commons, as in, don't suspend author protections because of specious arguments from big tech.
Ok, but @ossguy's post wasn't about the copyright issues with LLM-backed generative AI, so it's an orthogonal conversation.
I highly doubt those key people whom we've asked to join the conversation (users who use LLM-backed generative AI to submit (what are often) slop patches) understand the copyright issues all that well.
-
Talking with them is good. Helping to educate them is good. Making it sound as if what they are doing is okay is *not*.
There is a big difference between offering an olive branch to people who *might* be productive contributors in the *future*, and telling them that what they're doing *now* is okay.
The best AI policy remains "do not contribute any LLM-written content, ever". You have published a post that makes it easier for people who oppose such policies to cite your "olive branch" when arguing against it, and it is not obvious from your post that you do not want that to happen.
I don't want to see people *abused* for using LLMs. I do want them to understand that what they're doing is not okay and not welcome and not a positive contribution.@josh @silverwizard @ossguy @bkuhn @karen what Josh said. He's way more eloquent than I.
-
@bkuhn @silverwizard @cwebber in some cases they are criminals, they may be committing felony copyright infringement. I don't think that's remotely important to this discussion but I'd like to note that the hyperbolic phrasing is factually untrue.
I have always been against calling violation of a copyleft license a criminal offense. It's too harsh & it's wrong. I realize the DMCA might technically make it true, but the DMCA is a bad law & should be repealed.
I never pegged you as a fan of the criminal penalties under DMCA, but you're correct that maybe the very few people who have attempted copyright-washing with LLM's may have violated those DMCA terms.
But I still think it should be a civil, not criminal, legal matter.
-
Talking with them is good. Helping to educate them is good. Making it sound as if what they are doing is okay is *not*.
There is a big difference between offering an olive branch to people who *might* be productive contributors in the *future*, and telling them that what they're doing *now* is okay.
The best AI policy remains "do not contribute any LLM-written content, ever". You have published a post that makes it easier for people who oppose such policies to cite your "olive branch" when arguing against it, and it is not obvious from your post that you do not want that to happen.
I don't want to see people *abused* for using LLMs. I do want them to understand that what they're doing is not okay and not welcome and not a positive contribution.My first paid software development was in VBA. I did some of my first FOSS work and experimentation on a proprietary system (Windows). I benefited heavily from MinGW/MSYS. I appreciated having bridges available into the Open Source world; I would have had a harder time if they weren't.
But I also appreciated that, when I was doing so, I had access to plenty of guidance, and knew that I was on the starting point of a road, and not done yet. -
@ossguy's post isn't intended to be a *proof*, it's intended to be an *invitation to a discussion*.
So much of your response presupposes motivations of large groups of people that are not talking in a productive way (at the moment) with the FOSS community.
All of your questions are *open questions* that we should *talk* with others to get the answers to.
@bkuhn @karen @josh @ossguy Sorry - I don't believe that you can enter into a discussion that is three years old and act like there's no previous text.
I'm not presupposing *anything* - I'm attempting to read your text and finding meaning in it that seems to resonate with others.
I guess - what's your vision of the person who needs to be reached that isn't? And How is subjecting software maintainers and web admins to harassment and burnout worth meeting those people?
-
@bkuhn @wwahammy @silverwizard @cwebber It's also how we *got* a Free Software community in the first place. I know it's been a long time, but Free Software sprouted from proprietary systems. Yes, we'd like the Overton window to move more in our favor, but shunning people isn't the way to do it.
@neal @bkuhn @wwahammy @silverwizard @cwebber
LLMs have enormous ethical problems outside of just software. Just look at how Grok is polluting a neighborhood in memphis, and how AI is being used to create abuse material for pedophiles to jerk off to
-
I have always been against calling violation of a copyleft license a criminal offense. It's too harsh & it's wrong. I realize the DMCA might technically make it true, but the DMCA is a bad law & should be repealed.
I never pegged you as a fan of the criminal penalties under DMCA, but you're correct that maybe the very few people who have attempted copyright-washing with LLM's may have violated those DMCA terms.
But I still think it should be a civil, not criminal, legal matter.
@bkuhn you're assuming I support the criminal penalties. I don't. I brought it up to highlight the irony here.
-
@bkuhn @karen @silverwizard @josh there was an obvious path to sustainability for Web 2.0 and ajax so it made sense to use them.
@wwahammy:
> “there was an obvious path to sustainability for Web 2.0 and ajax so it made sense to use them.”
I know you didn't intend revisionist history, but that contradicts my experience.
I was there, trying to create & promulgate a copyleft for Web 2.0. I & everyone was unsure how to proceed so software freedom was maintained. To the extent AGPL succeeded,it was luck,not skill.
Our biggest mistake? We failed to dialogue with those who ballyhooed Web 2.0 & were its early adopters.
Cc: @evan -
@bkuhn I was working on two proposals for FOSSY and I'm not sure I even want to submit them any more.
-
@wwahammy:
> “there was an obvious path to sustainability for Web 2.0 and ajax so it made sense to use them.”
I know you didn't intend revisionist history, but that contradicts my experience.
I was there, trying to create & promulgate a copyleft for Web 2.0. I & everyone was unsure how to proceed so software freedom was maintained. To the extent AGPL succeeded,it was luck,not skill.
Our biggest mistake? We failed to dialogue with those who ballyhooed Web 2.0 & were its early adopters.
Cc: @evan -
-
Talking with them is good. Helping to educate them is good. Making it sound as if what they are doing is okay is *not*.
There is a big difference between offering an olive branch to people who *might* be productive contributors in the *future*, and telling them that what they're doing *now* is okay.
The best AI policy remains "do not contribute any LLM-written content, ever". You have published a post that makes it easier for people who oppose such policies to cite your "olive branch" when arguing against it, and it is not obvious from your post that you do not want that to happen.
I don't want to see people *abused* for using LLMs. I do want them to understand that what they're doing is not okay and not welcome and not a positive contribution.@josh @wwahammy The point I was trying to make is that people are making software with LLMs who had never made software before, they aren't familiar with how FOSS works, and we should teach them how so they can collaborate (when it makes sense) instead of being an island. When people see the huge benefits of building on FOSS, when they can make meaningful changes to their router, TV, or otherwise by themselves (and collaborate to share their changes with others), then FOSS wins. (1/2)
