you comment did no such thing, in a way that would be recognizable by anyone else. it probably would have been a good comment if you did expand on that though, in some meaningful way.
I use ai daily but reciting the talking points that killed what open source used to mean and using them to further separate original authors from the impact of their work
That’s ai pilled
I write code under the mit license
I know the risk
Helping humans still makes it worth it
And technically these AI companies should have a /licenses route that lists every MIT piece of code their model was trained on.
That’s literally the only expectation I have from anyone as an active author using the MIT license, getting cited.
I think the legal AI defense is that the models themselves are a bastardized form of dynamic linking. I say the models are statically linked though, so they need to spill their sources.
That’d be my question to the person I disrespected:
Why should I, as someone that’s not hypothetically giving back in code, continue to do so, when the social contract has been broken, where the always minimal expectation has been: Say my name?
I literally came up with a unique sdk for all “my elves” such that I can in fact see people in court for mishandling the software supply chain.
There’s a lot of software licensing misinformation out there and including my name and email with the rest of the license text is such a simple thing to misunderstand.
I’m sorry for any and all infractions you’ve committed across all MIT authors to date.
I’m not really planning to take anyone to court, but if you really believe what you’ve said to me here and you’ve been writing code that follows those beliefs
I’m not a lawyer, but you should probably consult a lawyer.
I literally re-wrote how I wrote software post-ai to ai pill the ai, such that, when these models produce ASTs that match my signature, I do have a legal defense.
I don’t think I would have said anything if the opening statement wasn’t a “you do you, but”
Thanks for taking the time to call me out politely.
To be objective, we can ask the creator of tailwind how much honor he feels with his business just being weights in a model in someone else’s business
https://github.com/tailwindlabs/tailwindcss.com/pull/2388#is...
https://www.businessinsider.com/tailwind-engineer-layoffs-ai...
https://dev.to/kniraj/tailwind-css-lays-off-75-of-engineerin...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46527950
Going full hypertext computer history, this is why Ted Nelson believed in micro transactions on transclusions.
In modern terms— when ai bills by the tokens, those tokens should also get paid out to the source materials.
The business model is primarily broken, which is why that’s not happening, and why the main business use case is militarization of it.