Related:
This is in a PR where Shougo, another long-time contributor, communicates entirely in walls of unparseable AI slop text: https://github.com/vim/vim/pull/19413
Thank you for the detailed feedback! I’ve addressed all the issues:
Thank you for the feedback! I agree that following the Vim 8+ naming convention makes sense.
Thank you for the feedback on naming!
Thanks for the suggestion! After thinking about this more, I believe repeat_set() / repeat_get() is the right choice:
Thank you for the feedback. A brief clarification.
Yes, hi 🙋♂️, I’m one of those maintainers that makes your software for free.
The biggest reasons I’m worried about the use of generative AI in open source software are that the output of generative AI is not copyrightable and therefore not licensable as open source, and that introduction of code which wasn’t submitted by the copyright owner can potentially be a copyright violation, potentially opening a project up to lawsuits by the actual copyright owner. If the AI outputs code that is owned by Microsoft, and you commit that code into your project, Microsoft can sue you for that and win.
Can you point to an example where this happened? Oracle v Google has become the standard which allows for transformative work, public use, and provisions for even going as reverse engineering. I believed this has largely been addressed but I’m open to learn who got fucked and how.
I don’t have a specific example of an end user of a generative model being sued, but there are tons of examples of the creators of the models (OpenAI, Midjourney, etc) being sued. It’s not farfetched to think someone using an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work output by an LLM could be sued for it. For example, if I started publishing an AI generated version of The Simpsons, I’d imagine I’d be sued.
Look I’m not saying it wouldn’t be possible to abuse the system, but that’s not how ip works. The example provided isn’t transformative nor very applicable from the legal perspective.
At this point and time as far as I know, this concern isn’t valid beyond someones imagination.
I’m not willing to test that by putting potentially copyrighted (and without permission) code into any of my code bases.
How do you prevent it with humans? You don’t think they’ve copied code? Has the legal stuff prevented Nintendo from firebombing projects for even looking at the actual fair use before it sees a court?
You do you. I’m just saying that people are not looking at facts and the landscape and going down the fighting an uphill path that’s basically unenforceable and probably hurting more than helping.
Putting a readme saying no AI isn’t going to protect you from these assholes.
How do you prevent humans from accidentally committing copyright infringement? I feel like that’s an incredibly easy thing to avoid. A human could intentionally commit copyright infringement, but that has always been the case. This policy isn’t meant to stop that, because that’s already illegal.