@dogfox @glyph @matt To the first:

There are lines we cannot cross to be sure, but we must be vigilant to prevent those lines from excluding all but exact matches to our own beliefs. This is the challenge, and one we are not meeting.

Once again, I am making no case for a lack of boundaries. I am making the case that the boundaries currently in play are counterproductive.

I can not and will not give you a maxim for establishing them. Looking for empiricism there is where you get into weird inversions of moral obligation.

As for obsession versus the thing itself, I see a distinction without a difference. To maintain "purity" as a virtue is to seek it, and without clarity that it is unattainable, you end up with some version of obsession. I would prefer a heuristic of growth and estimation of intent. Not perfect metrics, and deeply subjective. It's something best done in human relations, and not conducive to a few hundred characters of pith.

@glyph @matt So, this is probably the most misunderstood part of the piece, and that's on me. I am concerned about ideological purity in this context. Purity as a concept, whether ideological or otherwise (i.e. racial), is what I was calling dangerous. And racism, among many other things, is a derangement that weaponizes purity. This is an instrument capitalists used heavily throughout the latter 19th and early 20th centuries to disrupt labor movements and prevent workers of different races from finding common cause. That's not to say racism wasn't elsewhere or sourced from within all socioeconomic echelons. Even so, the weaponization and exacerbation is relevant. Purity is a way to pit people against each other.

Ideological purity, less dangerous than racism, still prevents finding common cause. Building movements requires working with those who do not agree with you on everything. There are lines we cannot cross to be sure, but we must be vigilant to prevent those lines from excluding all but exact matches to our own beliefs. This is the challenge, and one we are not meeting.

Am I a fascist for having used Claude Code and paying $20 to test it as others have? Some will say I am, or adjacent, because I have used a fascist tool. I find this deeply unhelpful to anyone. And that's my point. If you demonize anyone who touches this technology, your opposition movement is doomed to failure.

What do we want to accomplish? Stopping or stemming the spread of the disease, or building a commune of the untouched?

@cwebber @fhekland Ah hey, thanks!

And yeah, this question was really to get at the "We don't know," related to your point a while ago about the danger of attempting to license generated code. Basically I wanted more citations on that claim, and it sure seems like the best case scenario is "We don't know," and the worst case scenario is "Almost certainly not licensable." Either way, definitely not safe for us in open source.

@ai6yr Yeah I've had Copilot give me my own Rust code for Windows exploits.

@bob_zim @fhekland @cwebber