Conversation

Notices

Embed this notice
Esther Payne :bisexual_flag: (onepict@chaos.social)'s status on Sunday, 19-May-2024 05:24:08 JST Esther Payne :bisexual_flag:

Seeing some rather recognisable attitudes in arguments against NetBSDs stance against AI generated code.
*How do you know*, *how would you stop it*. *You can't stop us*.
Like aren't we meant to be better than that?
Disturbingly similar attitude to when we ask folks to not scrape folks posts on the fediverse without asking.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
Plus there are some very real licence considerations which will affect copyright (and copyleft).
https://blog.brettsheffield.com/all-your-base-are-belong-to-llm

In conversation about a year ago from chaos.social permalink
- Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this.
- Embed this notice
  Alex@rtnVFRmedia Suffolk UK (vfrmedia@social.tchncs.de)'s status on Sunday, 19-May-2024 05:24:06 JST Alex@rtnVFRmedia Suffolk UK
  in reply to
  
  @onepict this is literally the attitiude of a petty criminal / sociopath (not even an activist who generally openly says what act they are going to commit (or admits to it and accepts the consequences). I often suspect folk like this would have done actual crime in previous years (and perhaps some do, all the high tech methods used to nick cars and commit other frauds nowadays must have some tech muscle behind them)
  
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
  
  Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this.
- Embed this notice
  NetBSD Foundation ? (netbsd@mastodon.sdf.org)'s status on Sunday, 19-May-2024 08:20:13 JST NetBSD Foundation ?
  in reply to
  
  @onepict Also way too many people confusing "tainted" for "poor quality".
  
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
  
  Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this.
- Embed this notice
  NetBSD Foundation ? (netbsd@mastodon.sdf.org)'s status on Sunday, 19-May-2024 08:20:14 JST NetBSD Foundation ?
  in reply to
  
  @onepict i've probably said this 100+ times now - this policy is for committers (foundation members) only, who've all _already_ signed contracts with a clause about tainted code.
  the policy is for base only, which has strict rules about copyright for Reasons™[0]. We are not opting out of running any third-party code that might have used an auto-completion tool. Since the BSD license requires strict attribution, our code in base can't be used to train LLMs either.
  [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_Laboratories%2C_Inc._v._Berkeley_Software_Design%2C_Inc.
  In conversation about a year ago permalink
  Attachments
  1. No result found on File_thumbnail lookup.
    
    UNIX System Laboratories, Inc. v. Berkeley Software Design, Inc.
    
    USL v. BSDi was a lawsuit brought in New Jersey federal court in 1992 by Unix System Laboratories against Berkeley Software Design, Inc and the Regents of the University of California over intellectual property related to the Unix operating system; a culmination of the Unix wars. The case was settled out of court in 1994 after the judge expressed doubt in the validity of USL's intellectual property, with Novell (who by that time had bought USL) and the University agreeing not to litigate further over the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD). Background The suit has its roots at the Computer Systems Research Group (CSRG) at the University of California, Berkeley, which had a license for the source code of UNIX from AT&T's Bell Labs. Students doing operating systems research at the CSRG modified and extended UNIX, and the CSRG made several releases of the modified operating system beginning in 1978, with AT&T's blessing. Because this Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) contained copyrighted AT&T Unix source code, it was only available to organizations with a source code license for Unix from AT&T. ...
  Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this.