klankin

Apples brown at different rates??

Yeah it is, thats why you’ll hear ‘cleanroom development’ tossed around, to refer to someone that has never seen the other software’s source is developing its replacement.

This matters legally because its an airtight way to prove no copyright could have been violated. Usually the community overlooks such minor violations to support new developers, but unfortunately this sentiment is changing fast thanks to the modern piracy landscape.

The term ‘cleanroom’ has gotten pretty muddied with AI taking it over to mean ‘mathematically exclusively derived from the original source, but cleanroom makes us claim legal overship over someone else’s work so that’s what it is’. You can see how the meaning has drifted quite a lot once it reached marketing.

I haven’t seen any precedent in US or other courts on the originality of AI code, but if you have any links I’d be interested in learning more. It would be quite a monumental ruling, because it requires us to ask - how small of an AI model is technically original?

If I train an ‘AI’ on a single pice of work, can I then claim ownership over it legally? Or does it specifically require whatever the current state of the art datacenters are at? Cause then its just legal for cooperation’s to ignore copyright and no one else.

Forking a software with pirated code is still retains its piracy unfortunately.

Stack overflow comments are CC BY-SA 4.0 licensed, specifically to avoid the issue of piracy. I doubt everyone copying from it is properly attributing to the source, but thats much different then pretending the license doesn’t exist at all for personal benefit.

AI is trained without restriction on available internet content, including github where many AGPL projects exist.

Disclosure allows for a copyright respecting kernel to exist, still allowing pirates to fork it and add their stolen code if they want.

Unfortunately the entire kernel is just setting itself up for future legal issues, like what originally handicapped BSD because AT&Ts copyright claim over Unix.

I could see locally hosted transcriptions being helpful, but its scary how willing some doctors were to throw confidential patient information at the black box spy company.

Damn, I was gonna disagree but you bring up some good points.

I really need to get into functional programming.

Thats just how they remembered their private key

If the pencil was made on a factory where they don’t pay the workers.

Youre voting with your wallet, as dumb as the concept is.

Thank god economical architectures are more binary than gender.

You’re a Tankie or a Nazi, all else banned.

It is kinda funny that the AI talks like someone with ADHD, probably because most humans with it ramble the most online

Maybe Jesus will kiss me on the cheek and I’ll be able to perfectly render GTA 6 rtx in my mind.

But maybe we live in reality.

(science side of my opnion, LLMs are almost the same algorithm as a search engine in the background, making true novelty impossible. No one has yet created another novel OS like you describe for the AI companied to scrape, repackage, and resell yet, so its impossible for the LLMs to output such an OS.)

(The other other side of it is what do you even mean by a novel, stripped down, adapted OS? Like what has FOSS been developing for the past 40 years lmao? Anyone in the OS dev world knows usually the system itself is the most optimised part of the whole computer. Let’s shit on uncompressed 140gig games if we want to shit on someone)

Piracy is usually frowned upon in FOSS communities, regardless of the financial benefit (or lack of) to the pirate.

Usually disclosing piracy is required for the kernel, as unclearly licensed code weakens the entire foundation of the GPL it was built on, and opens the door to companies legally arguing to ignoring this license themselves.

This has the potential to handicap the entire FOSS community, and most consider that more important than a couple bugs some vibe coder desperately wants to introduce.

Still needs to be read from disk/flash, for the kernel to know it exists. And more relevantly every module has a number of dependencies that will all contribute to size/boot times in their own way.

Maybe even milliseconds is giving it too much, but bloat is really important especially near the release of new hardware.

I imagine the last thing anyone was worried about in crunch time was if they enabled enough random hardware in their config file.

Still clearly is now an intended feature, that yeah I’d even consider it being overlooked as a bug.

Assuming every single thing they do is a calculated, profit driven decision is like blaming all your bad luck on the devil, without proof youre just swatting imaginary faries.

I’d be insanely surprised if like 1 TV commercial would market leagues above “some company most old people don’t recognise changed something about a thing most people don’t know how works. The company claims its a positive”.

Good publicity from… having a bug?

The kernel has a ton of optional modules that they’d be stupid to include them all. They certainly don’t need support for an obscure Quebec companies GPUs that stopped producing in the 90s.

Its pretty standard operating to cut out any cruft you can, saves on storage, boot times, etc. This one was probably saving milliseconds and kilobytes, so presumably not much thought was given to disabling it, nor needed to reenable it.