Culture is our most important invention as a species. So important, in fact, that we’ve evolved to make it essential to our individual health and collective capacity to function. To deny someone access to interact with culture on the basis of their lack of wealth is cruel and anti-human.

Likewise, developing something like an LLM, which spews thoughtless pollution into the only shared infosphere we have, and displaces individuals’ ability to connect to each other to develop culture… that is an existential threat to the human race and should be opposed vehemently.

Culture is our most important invention as a species. So important, in fact, that we’ve evolved to make it essential to our individual health and collective capacity to function. To deny someone access to interact with culture on the basis of their lack of wealth is cruel and anti-human.

Likewise, developing something like an LLM, which spews thoughtless pollution into the only shared infosphere we have, and displaces individuals’ ability to connect to each other to develop culture… that is an existential threat to the human race and should be opposed vehemently.

Some people genuinely have a problem with it.

But I’m convinced that the majority of it is just: It’s embarrassing (and therefore costs social capital) to defend it.

So therefore: If you attach it to something else you want to attack, you just gave yourself a strategic advantage.

A lot of it probably isn’t legal, but who’s gonna prosecute them?

I agree with Prime on most things, but I think he’s getting this one wrong.

There are more options than just “light-hearted satire” and “earnest business idea”.

The FOSDEM talk is silly, and reads like a skit, but it has a gravely serious undertone.

The security guy has posted on Twitter “I still can’t believe he hooked it up to Stripe lol”.

Meanwhile the LinkedIn of the other guy describes him as a “researcher of political economy of FOSS” at Rochester Institute of Technology, and he runs a non-profit about FOSS for humanitarian aid.

He’s also been very active replying to people talking about the conference talk or the Malus site, asking whether they think this should be legal and what we can do to protect the future of open source.

I think these are people who take this threat very seriously, and are willing to expose themselves to litigation in order to force the issue into courts.

I avoid the potential presence of ads.

I recall seeing some research that suggested “ignoring” ads makes you more susceptible to their content. I couldn’t find it after a couple searches though.

No, it was giant radioactive ants.

But now I am actually not sure if what I saw was Them! or Matinee (which features a film that very well may be based on Them!)

Saw “Them!” when I was like 6. That was pretty bad.

And then Starship Troopers when I was like 10. That one really got me.

Huh. Never thought about how they’re both bug movies.

One box

I feel ya. But the pendulum will probably swing back the other way soon and we’ll have a ton of companies hiring to undo/replace slop code. That’s how it has been for previous coding fads, anyway.

I’ve got some skepticism alarms going off on this one.

What exactly does “basically reverse engineered some assembly” mean here? Decompiled to C?

And what do you mean by “remake in assembly”? Like, literally writing assembly by hand? Or compiling C source?

I’m not a lawyer, but my guess is that binary-to-binary translation isn’t enough to strip the license, even if you’re making a pit stop in a higher-level language.

This analysis is spot-on. I especially think you’re onto something with your reference to the commons. (Edit: The generative AI movement could be a seen as a modern reincarnation of enclosure)

These guys think of a commons in a sense of ownership: if I own something, I can do whatever I want with it.

But the real historical examples of a commons are more like a mutual obligation. It’s a relationship, not a delivery of inert goods. Yes, you get access to the benefits of the commons, but that comes hand-in-hand with accepting the duty to care for the commons as an ongoing entity.

That’s what really irks me about all of this. They didn’t “steal” something. They killed a collective organism.

Primeagen mentioned it here, noting that sqlite does this

Midwest $3.59/gal today

I truly wish they could steal it away.

The BT client will advertise the IP(s) of whatever network interface(s) you allow it to use.

Maybe through CXL you’ll be able to “download more RAM” (renting it, really)

Money is fine. Financialization is not.

The references in that video contradict its own content.

There is no evidence, historical or contemporary, of a society in which barter is the main mode of exchange;[27][26] instead, non-monetary societies operated largely along the principles of gift economy and debt.[25][24] When barter did in fact occur, it was usually between either complete strangers or potential enemies.[29]

The documentary “Finding The Money” has a takedown of this exact myth (Link to timestamp)

Not exactly. If you’re interested in the history of money and how it works, you should check out Finding The Money