To be fair I've seen the opposite happen as well, where people will take code released into the public domain and write Rust bindings for it and release those as GPL or some other more restrictive license, and I think that sucks too.

How hard is it to just - keep the same license? Just preserve the author's intent. They had a vision in mind and made a choice when they put their creative energies out into the world. Pass that forward.

The idea that you can cleanroom a codebase with an LLM to safely pivot licensing is really not anything I need to waste words arguing is the thought process of the worst sort of dipshit tech bro.

If you're on the fediverse you know this already.

At least this latest indignity to human creativity doesn't seem to involve Rust, a language I deeply love but one that also has a serious Bro problem and is being wielded in similar sorts of license-washing.

My worry is that the MIT license itself will become something like a scarlet letter. I am really not a proponent of GPL-by-default.

If someone wants to take my code and use it in an indie game or something I want them to be able to do that and not feel like they need to release their source code or pay me or do anything other than have my name in a readme somewhere.

It just makes me happy every time I get even the slightest hint that something I put effort in could be used in some way by someone else.

These are different kinds of liberties. I respect that the GPL prevented wholesale looting of volunteer efforts by corporations and the world would be a worse place without it.

But there is a space I think for unencumbered code, just ideas that float freely in the intellectual aether anyone is free to pluck down and use as they please.

Well, there was, anyway. Now that everything has been hoovered up by LLMs and smeared into a legally incomprehensible, fractal mélange of tokens there will be no convincing anyone that unencumbered ideas can't just be had wholesale and on demand on an industrial scale instead of being deliberately intentioned gifts from one human mind to another.

I'm just tired of this timeline. I'm tired of everything being awful i'm tired that every week it gets awful-er.

This may shock and appall some of my followers, but I don't even really hate AI. I think it is kind of cool, on a purely technical level. I cannot help but stay abreast of the advancements and test the SOTA-of-the-month models on previous failures to try to get a feeling for how fast our collective irrelevancy is approaching.

I think LLMs have a lot of potentially useful applications, were they not hopelessly mired in the ethical bog born of their own problematic creation, almost as if Atreyu's horse were standing in for our childhood dreams about how cool AI would be.

I see a lot of derisive dismissal of AI on grounds other than ethical ones and I somehow feel it is a mistaken approach, almost like a Vegan trying to convince you that all steak tastes bad.

I feel it is a dangerous underestimation of the immense resources in both talent and money being brought to bear on the problem.

Too many people focus on where AI currently is, forgetting where it was just scant years ago, and ignoring its current velocity.

I feel like anyone actually paying attention and testing each model that comes out knows that laughing it off as "slop" is not going to remain particularly amusing for long.

Only a year ago ChatGPT couldn't write Hello World in x86 assembly, and now it will emit a complete, working, 32-bit MS-DOS Mandelbrot generator in a single prompt.

The slop is starting to not look so very sloppy.

The only argument that I predict will not age extremely poorly is the ethical one.

After all, it is not like if ChatGPT stopped hallucinating and glazing and regurgitating its inputs tomorrow, you'd suddenly be okay with it - so why use any other argument other than that it is a leviathan in the hands of the oligarchy?

Slop or Shakespeare, that doesn't change.