We’ve been getting a lot of AI coded submissions recently, as well as lots of reports asking to remove them.
Should we remove these posts, or not?
We’ve been getting a lot of AI coded submissions recently, as well as lots of reports asking to remove them.
Should we remove these posts, or not?
Rule 1 says Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
I don’t think any ai projects can claim to be that when their copyright status is debatable and the tooling is worse with how closed their training is.
Since when has development tooling mattered for something to be FOSS? If it relies on propietary software to build or run it then there’s an argument it’s not truly free.
But if we’re saying that anything developed using closed source tools is not allowed then we’ll have to throw out anything that was developed on a mac or Windows PC.
People against LLM parrot the same arguments again and again that it has simply lost its original meaning.
debatable by who? who is going to settle this debate?, the courts who serve corporate greed?, Legislation made by politicians lobbied by SaaS companies? Anthropic? OpenAi? Microsoft?
The “Copyright is debatable/ its just a plagiarism machine” stance is not the Leftist/ pro FOSS gotcha argument you think it is. The point of the FOSS movement was to have total freedom over software, and that freedom includes the ability to study, learn and use it in ways it was not intended for. To stand as the antitheses of that is make Steve Balmer happy
All currently existing LLMs are unethically trained on copyrighted code that is incompatible with GPL licensed projects. LLMs have a 3 to 10% chance to unknowingly reproduce the copyrighted code perfectly, introducing legal plagiarism into an open-source project, which could easily open up the developers to being sued in the future if companies scanned open source repos for copyright violations.
Some European courts have ruled that LLM generated code cannot be copyrighted at all, meaning that it also cannot be legally made GPL, losing the protections from corporate exploration the GPL normally grants. https://fsfe.org/news/2026/news-20260825-01.html
You are just adding your oss preferences to open source here. I too have preferences, like no corp oss, no ads, no logins, no telemetry and so on, but i have to accept oss as oss more broadly.
I would recommend that you set your agent to filter out posts you don’t want, but you would likely rather censor this sub than automate it with an agent…
You’re missing the point he’s trying to make IMO. He’s questioning if software can be categorized as open source, if it is coded by closed source LLMs, that in turn only aquired their database by stealing someone elses intellectual property. It’s a valid question. OSS is more than just “I can see and fork the code”.
But humans do basically the same thing and their brains aren’t open source either
I truly meant it as a debatable question. If LLMs didn’t have massive proven negative ecological and societal impacts, I’m not sure which way I would lean. Since they do, I have a clear personal opinion. But it’s just that. My opinion.
Humans also have massive negative ecological and societal impacts depending on the person/society. I don’t see how whether a human or LLM writes code changes how open source it is.
OSS == Open-Source Software, what are you talking about
Did you not read the full rule?
How can something that is inherently closed sourced be in line with that rule?
I’ll tug on that thread… so can we not use Windows or macOS to develop OSS code on? It has to be on a Linux machine? What if the BIOS is closed source or it’s using binary blobs for the video drivers?
Just to be clear, do you mean that the user’s user agent (lemmy client) should be capable of filtering out posts about vibecoded slop, perhaps by having lemmy communities require such posts to be tagged? Or do you mean that a LLM should curate what users see here?