CIRCLE WITH A DOT

@swelljoe And, in general, the reliability of Techrights is summed up by https://techrights.org/i/2025/12/case-judgment-summary.html

@swelljoe @neverpanic @bagder I'd expect a lot of those blockchain companies to be members of the Hyperledger Foundation, which is mostly focused on non-cryptocurrency uses of blockchain technology.

@swelljoe That's a list of the sector of organisations that belong to the LF. This is the budget breakdown, which shows 3% being spent directly on the kernel. Some amount of the funding for other projects is also going to contribute to the kernel in various ways.

But, fundamentally, the LF is a trade organisation and an umbrella for multiple other foundations. A lot of the money given to them is earmarked for specific purposes, they can't just choose to spend it on the kernel.

To be fair, Hardin fucking sucked and his actual examples are pretty awful and you do not, under any circumstances, got to hand it to him

@hakan_geijer Oh yeah dude fucking sucked

Garrett Hardin: I described the tragedy of the commons as a warning against a system that drives people to consume common resources for personal benefit
AI companies: Good news, we have implemented the tragedy of the commons as a service

Palantir telling their foreign customers that their priority will always be to defend the USA is certainly a choice

@jwz @glyph Fair point, and also obviously commit messages play into this. If LLMs are tending to churn out people's comments I think my argument ends up massively weaker.

@glyph I understand your point and to me it does feel like there's a real difference that I'm not expressing terribly well. Words have a meaningful impact on how the story lands, and that just doesn't feel true for most code? In general I want code that clearly communicates the functional goal, not code that seeks to accentuate that through style.

@glyph I think I've covered why the plagiarism bit feels less true to me for code than for other fields, and I don't think the error prone aspect of it matters for the cases I'm thinking of. The world burning and economic destruction and loss of human skills are certainly a consequence of how these things are currently deployed but it's not inherent (at least, not to anywhere near this scale), and having it be an immediate "no" rather than "Is there an ethical way to do this" feels rough

@TheOneDoc There's a whole bunch of extremely legitimate reasons to push back on LLM usage, and I think the widespread adoption of them by industry is going to have a significant negative impact.

@bluca (The original version of this is pretty anti-semitic and the author is a fucking nazi)

@bluca I do see your point and also please do not post Stonetoss at me

@promovicz I think a set of instructions to a machine should not be copyrightable and the rest flows from there.

@dngrs sure! Define smaller blocks, examine them, modify if the output isn't what you need

@dekkzz78 Safety critical and security critical software should always have an appropriately skilled human in the loop

@dekkzz78 I am absolutely not going to argue that LLMs replace the need for skilled developers! But many people who want to modify software are just doing it for personal use and if we argue using LLMs for that is unethical we risk alienating them all

@Nfoonf The irony here is that now I have money I would rather pay people to solve these problems

@Nfoonf Back in the day I had software that didn't do what I wanted, and I didn't know C yet. I patched stuff in many awful ways that met my needs and which taught me nothing in the moment and could never be upstreamed. How would having a machine help me achieve that make free software worse?

@p If you're doing something other than

var++

then you're doing something wrong. Code is instructions to a machine. The description of what that code does may be creative, if the actual implementation is then you are almost certainly in a bad place.