Re: SQL Lite doesn't provide unit tests
This is now looking extremely forward-looking. To defend itself from vibe-lifting, this open source project chose not to provide unit tests.
This acts to discourage cloning projects trying to move in and create vibe coded copies. It is extremely hard to clone SQL Lite and this was a deliberate policy on their part.
Expect to see that happen more and more on high profile open source projects.
@jhlagado I have at least one friend (who is anti-AI, incidentally) who doesn’t consider something to be freedom-respecting (free/libre/“open source”) software…
(Among other things.)
I understand the sentiment - legally granting the four freedoms doesn’t mean much if the author has made every effort to subvert their exercise in practice.
There’s no way around it - genLLMs in their current form must be outlawed.
And this won’t happen as long as people in tech are being indifferent, passive, defeatist/inevitabilist, or (worst of all) idiotically embracing genLLMs.
@contrapunctus @jhlagado I think just requiring the models to release their training data etc. is not enough.
Training of (serious) models requires so many resources that it's not viable for anyone to do.
LLMs, to be freedom-respecting, must, in my opinion, be trainable and usable on commodity hardware in reasonable time.
I would argue that even releasing all of the weights is not sufficient. There would be an argument that if you could reproduce absolutely all the initial conditions and all the seeds for all the random number generators as well as the neural networks weights, you might be able to reproduce the exact result and deterministically derive from the initial prompt. However, that's not practical and not the way people use LLMs.
I made a quick explainer video discussing this issue here (6 minutes)
The US Copyright Office has described an LLM as a black box which is non-deterministically prompted by a human but the result has no human author.
Without a human author, no copyright is possible and therefore no licencing scheme freedom maximising or not has any relevance. The generated code is automatically considered public domain and this is not the basis of open source.
I understand your concerns about AI and freedom, but there’s something the industry often misses: vibe-coded, LLM-generated code may not even qualify for copyright in the first place and if it’s not copyrightable, it can’t be open source—because open source relies on licensing something you own. So before we even get into AI being “freedom-respecting,” we have to recognize that some AI-derived code can’t be licensed as open source at all because there's no human author.
the US Copyright Copyright Office has a discussion about this. LLM generated code has no human author and therefore no copyright. No copyright means no owner and therefore no right to licence. This goes further than demanding various additional degrees of openness towards challenging the idea that open source licensing is even possible for LLM vibe coded software.
John Hardy
Traveling OSM Salesgirl Problem ✊🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️🇺🇦
Jonas Schäfer