6 ms·

I was banned from an OpenSource project [1] recently because I suggested a bug fix. Their „code of conduct“ not only prevents PRs but also comments on issues w

by rmoriz 1y ago

I was banned from an OpenSource project [1] recently because I suggested a bug fix. Their „code of conduct“ not only prevents PRs but also comments on issues with information that was retrieved by any AI tool or resource. Thinking about asking Claude to reimplement it from scratch in Rust… [1] https://codeberg.org/superseriousbusiness/gotosocial/src/branch/main/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md https://codeberg.org/superseriousbusiness/gotosocial/src/bra...

sreekanth850 1y ago
/ Suddenly i saw this: //Update regarding corporate sponsors: we are open to sponsorship arrangements with organizations that align with our values; see the conditions below.// They should know that beggars cant be choosers.
- 3836293648 1y ago
  That's not begging. That's a premptive rejection for people who think they can take control of the project through money.
- driverdan 1y ago
  It's pretty funny that they say "We are not interested in input from right-wingers, nazis, ... or capitalists." and then say they're open to corporate sponsorships. If they want to be consistent they'd only be open to government or individual sponsors, not corps.
QuadmasterXLII 1y ago
That must be so hard for you.
- rmoriz 1y ago
  The bugs are on them. I‘ve fixed them in my fork but of course I‘ll migrate to a non-discriminating alternative.
  - skydhash 1y ago
    Your fork works, so why are you so unhappy? You can always publish you diff to help other people if you really want to do so.
    - rmoriz 1y ago
      I don‘t want others to get trappend, hence I‘ve unpublished my fixes. I‘ll also migrate to another software as I clearly have no time dealing with such exclusive politics. There is no point in discussing with stubborn and brain-washed people, the only solution is to move forward and warn others. That’s the reason I posted my comment.
lordhumphrey 1y ago
> 2. We will not accept changes (code or otherwise) created with the aid of "AI" tooling. "AI" models are trained at the expense of underpaid workers filtering inputs of abhorrent content, and does not respect the owners of input content. Ethically, it sucks. Do you disagree with some part of the statement regarding "AI" in their CoC? Do you think there's a fault in their logic, or do you yourself personally just not care about the ethics at play here? I find it refreshing personally to see a project taking a clear stance. Kudos to them. Recently enjoyed reading the Dynamicland project's opinion on the subject very much too[0], which I think is quite a bit deeper of an argument than the one above. Ethics seems to be, unfortunately, quite low down on the list of considerations of many developers, if it factors in at all to their decisions. [0] https://dynamicland.org/2024/FAQ/#What_is_Realtalks_relationship_to_AI https://dynamicland.org/2024/FAQ/#What_is_Realtalks_relation...
- DrewADesign 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - incr_me 1y ago
    > "AI" models are trained at the expense of underpaid workers filtering inputs of abhorrent content, and does not respect the owners of input content. Ethically, it sucks. These ethics are definitely derived from a profit motive, however petty it may be.
    - AlecSchueler 1y ago
      You're assuming "respect" means "payment" but it could be as simple as "recognition."
  - pjc50 1y ago
    Conversely, if the only motivation is profit, that's no ethics at all. (and of course without non-profit motivations, none of the open source ecosystem would exist!)
pluto_modadic 1y ago
you disobeyed a code of conduct? that's not a good look.
bgwalter 1y ago
There is no "from scratch" for "AI". Claude will read the original, launder it, strip the license and pass it off as its own work.
- TuxSH 1y ago
  Indeed, LLMs cannot do truly novel thinking, and the laundering analogy is spot-on. However they're able to do more than just regurgitating code, I can have them explain to me the underlying (mathematical or whatever) concept behind the code and write new code from scratch myself, with that knowledge. Can/should this new code be considered as derivative work, if the underlying principles were already documented in literature?
  - wizzwizz4 1y ago
    They can regurgitate explanations as well as code. I'd strongly recommend doing actual research: you'll find better (less-distorted, better laid out, more complete) explanations.
ok123456 1y ago
"You used AI!" is now being weaponized by project maintainers who don't want to accept contributions, regardless of how innocuous. A large C++ emulator project was failing to build with a particular compiler with certain Werror's enabled. It came down to reordering a few members (that matters in C++) and using the universal initializer syntax in a few places. It was a +3-3 diff. I got lambasted. One notoriously hostile maintainer accused me of making AI slop. The others didn't understand why the order mattered and referred to it as "churn."
encom 1y ago
That particular CoC is a colossal red flag that the maintainers are utterly deranged. This might actually be the worst CoC I've ever seen. Any CoC is a red flag, but people often get pressured into it, so it's a sliding scale.

by rmoriz 1y ago

sreekanth850 1y ago

/ Suddenly i saw this: //Update regarding corporate sponsors: we are open to sponsorship arrangements with organizations that align with our values; see the conditions below.// They should know that beggars cant be choosers.

3836293648 1y ago
That's not begging. That's a premptive rejection for people who think they can take control of the project through money.
driverdan 1y ago
It's pretty funny that they say "We are not interested in input from right-wingers, nazis, ... or capitalists." and then say they're open to corporate sponsorships. If they want to be consistent they'd only be open to government or individual sponsors, not corps.

QuadmasterXLII 1y ago

That must be so hard for you.

rmoriz 1y ago
The bugs are on them. I‘ve fixed them in my fork but of course I‘ll migrate to a non-discriminating alternative.
- skydhash 1y ago
  Your fork works, so why are you so unhappy? You can always publish you diff to help other people if you really want to do so.
  - rmoriz 1y ago
    I don‘t want others to get trappend, hence I‘ve unpublished my fixes. I‘ll also migrate to another software as I clearly have no time dealing with such exclusive politics. There is no point in discussing with stubborn and brain-washed people, the only solution is to move forward and warn others. That’s the reason I posted my comment.

lordhumphrey 1y ago

> 2. We will not accept changes (code or otherwise) created with the aid of "AI" tooling. "AI" models are trained at the expense of underpaid workers filtering inputs of abhorrent content, and does not respect the owners of input content. Ethically, it sucks. Do you disagree with some part of the statement regarding "AI" in their CoC? Do you think there's a fault in their logic, or do you yourself personally just not care about the ethics at play here? I find it refreshing personally to see a project taking a clear stance. Kudos to them. Recently enjoyed reading the Dynamicland project's opinion on the subject very much too[0], which I think is quite a bit deeper of an argument than the one above. Ethics seems to be, unfortunately, quite low down on the list of considerations of many developers, if it factors in at all to their decisions. [0] https://dynamicland.org/2024/FAQ/#What_is_Realtalks_relationship_to_AI https://dynamicland.org/2024/FAQ/#What_is_Realtalks_relation...

DrewADesign 1y ago
[flagged]
- incr_me 1y ago
  > "AI" models are trained at the expense of underpaid workers filtering inputs of abhorrent content, and does not respect the owners of input content. Ethically, it sucks. These ethics are definitely derived from a profit motive, however petty it may be.
  - AlecSchueler 1y ago
    You're assuming "respect" means "payment" but it could be as simple as "recognition."
- pjc50 1y ago
  Conversely, if the only motivation is profit, that's no ethics at all. (and of course without non-profit motivations, none of the open source ecosystem would exist!)

pluto_modadic 1y ago

you disobeyed a code of conduct? that's not a good look.

bgwalter 1y ago

There is no "from scratch" for "AI". Claude will read the original, launder it, strip the license and pass it off as its own work.

TuxSH 1y ago
Indeed, LLMs cannot do truly novel thinking, and the laundering analogy is spot-on. However they're able to do more than just regurgitating code, I can have them explain to me the underlying (mathematical or whatever) concept behind the code and write new code from scratch myself, with that knowledge. Can/should this new code be considered as derivative work, if the underlying principles were already documented in literature?
- wizzwizz4 1y ago
  They can regurgitate explanations as well as code. I'd strongly recommend doing actual research: you'll find better (less-distorted, better laid out, more complete) explanations.

ok123456 1y ago

"You used AI!" is now being weaponized by project maintainers who don't want to accept contributions, regardless of how innocuous. A large C++ emulator project was failing to build with a particular compiler with certain Werror's enabled. It came down to reordering a few members (that matters in C++) and using the universal initializer syntax in a few places. It was a +3-3 diff. I got lambasted. One notoriously hostile maintainer accused me of making AI slop. The others didn't understand why the order mattered and referred to it as "churn."

encom 1y ago

That particular CoC is a colossal red flag that the maintainers are utterly deranged. This might actually be the worst CoC I've ever seen. Any CoC is a red flag, but people often get pressured into it, so it's a sliding scale.