DeckPacker

joined 3 weeks ago
[–] DeckPacker@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Wow, that's really good! What technique did you use for this? How did you get such good shading?

There is no way to verify it. Sometimes it is quite obvious though. It's not really about eliminating it completely (although I wish I could). It's more about taking a clear stance and maybe keep off a few people, that think they can "help" with AI. Maybe we could ban people, when it's obvious. Although we should always strive to still create a welcoming culture and not create too much trouble for the people, that don't use AI.

 

As I understand, there are currently no real guidelines for this, even though AI is currently a big topic in FOSS.
In my opinion, AI can be quite dangerous for free software and that's why we really need to discuss how we can address this issue. Here are some of the reasons for that:

  • Poor quality, insecure code: AI still produces hard to maintain code, that is often severely insecure. Even if you check every line of code carefully, there is a good chance you overlook something, because you won't fully understand the code, you haven't written yourself
  • Licensing issues: AI often reproduces code from it's training material, which could be incompatible with this codes license
  • Legal trouble: The legality of the copyright about AI is not yet really settled, so it could be a big legal risk to have AI-code in your codebase
  • Ethics: AI systematically exploits the work of all open source contributors for the profit of big companies. We as part of the free software movement should reject this more openly

My idea for this policy was, that we should definetely demand for AI generated code to be marked as such (you have to disclose in your commits, if you have used AI for that). I think we should also ban entirely AI-generated PRs aswell, because they produce more work for the maintainers than they actually help with anything. Were I am not quite sure yet, is how we handle the case when someone used AI just as autocomplete, but wrote most of the code themselves? You should probably also have to disclose that, do you think we should ban something like that?

Looking forward to hear what you think about this!

Anarchism doesn't mean, there are no rules. Read the wikipedia article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

[–] DeckPacker@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That was indeed a really interesting read! It really made me think more deeply about software licencing. I didn't quite understand what the authors problem with GPLv3 was though? That the companies are scared of it? Isn't that kind of a good thing? I don't want amazon to make massive profits off of my work, because if that's possible to do, then that would necessarily mean, that my goal as a developer (to protect my work from exploitation while helping the common good) isn't working. I am curious what you have taken away from the essay though? How do you protect your code from corporate exploitation?

Yeah, I also think this attempt will ultimately fail. They probably think it could work, but these people are not known for being particularly smart.

It could still divert some people from the right "path" (learning to appreciate good art though), which makes me a bit sad.

[–] DeckPacker@piefed.blahaj.zone 9 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Wow, I didn't think, I would get such an interesting book recommendation out of this. Thank you so much!

[–] DeckPacker@piefed.blahaj.zone 22 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

I think the ultimate goal is to destroy art in general because it has always been a majour driving factor for progressive social change (at least since the Renaissance), because art is about critically reflecting on our society and our environment.

[–] DeckPacker@piefed.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Free software works though?? Also if you want some real world examples of anarchist-like principles being applied in praxis, without fascism, look up Rojava or the Zapatista-Movement.

[–] DeckPacker@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Isn't protecting workers from exploration on of the core goals of communism?

I mean, it's less about the intention and more about the reality of software development. Just because the developers back then didn't chose to do software development in an anarchist way (although I think a lot of them had that kind of mindset), doesn't mean, that they didn't do it using anarchist principles.

[–] DeckPacker@piefed.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 weeks ago

Alright, thanks ;)

[–] DeckPacker@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Are you shure about that? Because that would mean, that every piece of software, that hasn't been released to the public would automatically be free software, which would make the label pretty meaninglessness.

 

This thought came to me in the shower today. Open source checks most of the boxes. It is a collaborative, worker owned (develloper-owned) project, that tries to flatten hierarchy. Especially if you look at something like Debian ), which really tries to have a bottom-up structure.
Of course, there are exceptions, considering there are a lot of corporate open-source projects, that are not democratically maintained and clearly only serve the interest of the company, who created it (like chromium for example).
So I am mainly talking about community-oriented FOSS projects here.
And if you were to agree with my statement, would you say that developing FOSS software is advancing the goals of the anarchist / communist project, because it is laying the groundwork infrastructure needed for a new kind of economy and society?
Thought this could be an interesting discussion!

view more: next ›