Well-documented list of free software projects and their use of genAI:https://codeberg.org/small-hack/open-slopware
-
Well-documented list of free software projects and their use of genAI:
https://codeberg.org/small-hack/open-slopwareIt’s already a long list that shows what looks like uncritical adoption, both by high-profile projects (systemd, VLC, etc.) and by niche projects (GNU Mach is a prime example).
@civodul vlc and mach are not correct. mach has not accepted generated source code, vlc appears to have nothing at all but the absent "creator" who doesn't contribute talking on a podcast. "use of genAI" is defined extremely broadly here in a way i find intended to harm
-
@civodul vlc and mach are not correct. mach has not accepted generated source code, vlc appears to have nothing at all but the absent "creator" who doesn't contribute talking on a podcast. "use of genAI" is defined extremely broadly here in a way i find intended to harm
@civodul "what looks like uncritical adoption" is kind of irresponsible to say without perusing the very projects you mention by name at least
-
Well-documented list of free software projects and their use of genAI:
https://codeberg.org/small-hack/open-slopwareIt’s already a long list that shows what looks like uncritical adoption, both by high-profile projects (systemd, VLC, etc.) and by niche projects (GNU Mach is a prime example).
@civodul > A policy that permits the use of AI/LLMs in any capacity or is declared to be vibecoded. Both vibecoding and opening the door for people to vibecode count as a permissive AI policy.
What a big huge dumb pile of bollocks this is
-
@civodul > A policy that permits the use of AI/LLMs in any capacity or is declared to be vibecoded. Both vibecoding and opening the door for people to vibecode count as a permissive AI policy.
What a big huge dumb pile of bollocks this is
@civodul Reminds me of the time everybody had to change their branch from `master` to `main`, otherwise a big crowd of holier-than-thou warriors would descend upon your project to shame it
-
@civodul Reminds me of the time everybody had to change their branch from `master` to `main`, otherwise a big crowd of holier-than-thou warriors would descend upon your project to shame it
@civodul Oh yeah, and marking something as “tainted” is very nice & cool & good & mentally stable behaviour
-
@civodul Oh yeah, and marking something as “tainted” is very nice & cool & good & mentally stable behaviour
@civodul Very funny though
-
Well-documented list of free software projects and their use of genAI:
https://codeberg.org/small-hack/open-slopwareIt’s already a long list that shows what looks like uncritical adoption, both by high-profile projects (systemd, VLC, etc.) and by niche projects (GNU Mach is a prime example).
The most surprising for me is Anubis.
-
Well-documented list of free software projects and their use of genAI:
https://codeberg.org/small-hack/open-slopwareIt’s already a long list that shows what looks like uncritical adoption, both by high-profile projects (systemd, VLC, etc.) and by niche projects (GNU Mach is a prime example).
@civodul
AFAIK are for Hurd projects like GNU Mach LLMs "only" used to point out possible problems. Code should always be written by humans. -
@civodul "what looks like uncritical adoption" is kind of irresponsible to say without perusing the very projects you mention by name at least
@hipsterelectron I agree that the categorization is a bit too extremist. But the list is a good starting point for doing one's own explorations.
-
The most surprising for me is Anubis.
@khinsen they haven't accepted LLM contributions which is a really significant distinction
-
Well-documented list of free software projects and their use of genAI:
https://codeberg.org/small-hack/open-slopwareIt’s already a long list that shows what looks like uncritical adoption, both by high-profile projects (systemd, VLC, etc.) and by niche projects (GNU Mach is a prime example).
Meanwhile, @civodul@toot.aquilenet.fr, at Oracle:
Contributions in the OpenJDK Community must not include content generated, in part or in full, by large language models, diffusion models, or similar deep-learning systems. Content, in this context, includes but is not limited to source code, text, and images in OpenJDK Git repositories, GitHub pull requests, e-mail messages, wiki pages, and JBS issues.
I want this so bad for Guix <img class="not-responsive emoji" src="https://awkward.place/emoji/stolen/blobsadfrown.png" title=":blobsadfrown:" />
-
@hipsterelectron I agree that the categorization is a bit too extremist. But the list is a good starting point for doing one's own explorations.
@khinsen @civodul i'm glad to see they provide citations now. the first version of this i saw a few weeks ago didn't. i had to delete my initial reply which failed to examine it before responding and it seems like a good change. their labels are not remotely helpful and seem intended to obfuscate. i really do not respect the categorization they employ but do not contest that the projects they include are all worth listing (including the ones @civodul mentioned in OP). i just have a strong aversion to the failure to make distinctions which i feel harms the ability to help the users of this list to extend the analysis beyond LLMs to e.g. surveillance and other harmful influences
-
Meanwhile, @civodul@toot.aquilenet.fr, at Oracle:
Contributions in the OpenJDK Community must not include content generated, in part or in full, by large language models, diffusion models, or similar deep-learning systems. Content, in this context, includes but is not limited to source code, text, and images in OpenJDK Git repositories, GitHub pull requests, e-mail messages, wiki pages, and JBS issues.
I want this so bad for Guix <img class="not-responsive emoji" src="https://awkward.place/emoji/stolen/blobsadfrown.png" title=":blobsadfrown:" />
-
@khinsen @civodul i'm glad to see they provide citations now. the first version of this i saw a few weeks ago didn't. i had to delete my initial reply which failed to examine it before responding and it seems like a good change. their labels are not remotely helpful and seem intended to obfuscate. i really do not respect the categorization they employ but do not contest that the projects they include are all worth listing (including the ones @civodul mentioned in OP). i just have a strong aversion to the failure to make distinctions which i feel harms the ability to help the users of this list to extend the analysis beyond LLMs to e.g. surveillance and other harmful influences
@khinsen @civodul come to think of it, maybe i could be my own change and make such a table for surveillance of different varieties. i'm sorry @civodul for my initial response since i fully believe you to be aware of and thoughtful about this. i was clearly being defensive and that's extremely unhelpful here. i will try very hard to avoid this and i admire your ability to accept hard truths
-
Well-documented list of free software projects and their use of genAI:
https://codeberg.org/small-hack/open-slopwareIt’s already a long list that shows what looks like uncritical adoption, both by high-profile projects (systemd, VLC, etc.) and by niche projects (GNU Mach is a prime example).
@civodul This list is so devastating. KOReader, Hugo, AntennaPod were great projects…
-
Well-documented list of free software projects and their use of genAI:
https://codeberg.org/small-hack/open-slopwareIt’s already a long list that shows what looks like uncritical adoption, both by high-profile projects (systemd, VLC, etc.) and by niche projects (GNU Mach is a prime example).
@civodul This list is poorly curated. FreeBSD was included with a link to a commit I authored (without LLM use) as "evidence", because a report submitted to the security team made use of an LLM. It currently links to https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-src?tab=contributing-ov-file#quality-expectations as evidence of a permissive AI policy.
-
@civodul This list is poorly curated. FreeBSD was included with a link to a commit I authored (without LLM use) as "evidence", because a report submitted to the security team made use of an LLM. It currently links to https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-src?tab=contributing-ov-file#quality-expectations as evidence of a permissive AI policy.
@emaste I guess they consider “permissive” anything that doesn’t explicitly forbid genAI-assisted contributions.
I don’t see a commit link for FreeBSD, but maybe that’s because you reported it before?
-
@emaste I guess they consider “permissive” anything that doesn’t explicitly forbid genAI-assisted contributions.
I don’t see a commit link for FreeBSD, but maybe that’s because you reported it before?
@civodul Yeah, I submitted a ticket about misleading information for FreeBSD and they subsequently removed the commit links.
-
@civodul > A policy that permits the use of AI/LLMs in any capacity or is declared to be vibecoded. Both vibecoding and opening the door for people to vibecode count as a permissive AI policy.
What a big huge dumb pile of bollocks this is
@Profpatsch Yeah well, it’s a questionable categorization; I guess their goal is to distinguish between those forbid/allow/boast-about use of LLMs.
I dislike the pointing-fingers aspect of it, but I find the links to policies etc. quite valuable.
-
@civodul "what looks like uncritical adoption" is kind of irresponsible to say without perusing the very projects you mention by name at least
@hipsterelectron Yeah sorry, that was poorly worded! Rather I guess we can conclude from this that there’s some acceptance of genAI-produced code, but of course with varying degrees and differing policies.
(The fact that many projects have policies in place suggests they are, indeed, critical, regardless of the take of their policy.)
