¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But, done of us like to be used :(

You don’t expect OP to understand this?

Maybe if he shakes his head fast left and right, those two braincells could touch for a second, but I consider the chances pretty slim

US risks all international relations.

There, fixed your headline guardian

This is the 20ies post I see about this.

And the 10th times I will say it:

This is a prototype release. This is not a production ready release. It demos the integration. Each country will build their own app.

Not Germany ffs. Friedrich Merz is not Germany, as Donald Trump is not the USA.

As much as I understand the intent, license laundering is a real thing currently and mostly hurts open source.

We, as a open source loving community , should not fall into this trap

I think the copyright question is gar simpler. Copyright requires creative work.

LLMs are not creative, they are an auto complete on steroids

Nope. Courts decided: AI output is never copyrightable.

I though a while if i should answer to it. And this is so wrong, and dangerous, that i decided to do.

First: Such licensing questions are part of my day to day Job. I will explain it to you like i explain it to first semester students:

A LICENSE defines the terms under which a copyrighted work can be used, distributed and so on. It does not matter what the work is. A few relevant examples:

• Beats: in the music industry there is a market for beats. If you take a 10 second beat and in-cooperate it in your own music without having a license for it, you are in violation of copyright law.
• Paintings: You can not have a copyright on the concept of using paint to draw pictures on a piece of linen, you can not have a copyright on the concept of a specific object drawn on linen. You can have copyright on YOUR version of it. If somebody else takes your work, and only modifies it slightly (or for example, include it into a book, that is a copyright-able piece of work), without having a license for it… copyright violation

So, this brings us back to our topic:

There is no difference between sourcecode, music, paintings or writings for the purpose of licensing.

So, as courts established, AI CAN NOT BE CREATIVE and ALWAYS based on other works. Therefore any AI generated Work is in itself are not protected by copyright.

So, EVERY piece of code that is AI generated is free to go for any purpose, it does not fucking matter if there is a GPL 3.0 header in the file. AI Generated == Public domain.

But: Projects use viral copyleft licenses for a reason. A company could just take the AI generated code, implement it, and if somebody has a problem with it an just shrug “It’s AI generated, it’s public domain”.

So, by your logic I take the kernel source, or parts of it and use them verbatim in my property project?

You can see yourself that you are talking bullshit?

Or course code is and was licensable. Because code is more then hast if, else, for, while.

Ever seen that some code in some projects is dual licensed?

Why would anyone need this if only while projects are licensable?

https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/licence-compatibility-permissivity-reciprocity-and-interoperability

Ok, so, someone used an LLM do create changes. This new code is no longer under the project license it is, as you say, public domain.

Move forward 400 commits. At what point is most of the code public domain?

While correct you still missed the point completely.

So,not make this as clear as possible: You can not license LLM generated code. Not under GPL, z lib or other copyleft licenses. It may work with public domain licenses.

For MIT licensed projects there is not a big issue.

For the kernel, have a look at the rules. AI models may assist only.

Then maybe, just maybe, we should start canceling short distance flights?

Would also be a little bit less CO2 pumped out for a while.

I can’t see that. Yes, the press is hyping Mythos in a complete brainless way, without understanding what the Mythos paper says.

But just following the statements made by Anthropic that is a clear and factual representation.

I actually recommend that people read the paper itself. And not just die cherry picked parts of the press.

Also, I have seen 3 reported 0days found by Mythos in projects I (or my employer) contributes.

That is not hype, those found issues are fact.

If You made it to here in the comment, a little bonus. Let us debunk some press statements

• Press: Mythos cheated, lied and is dangerous.

• Fact: earlier versions did this. Anthropic describes the preview version as the most aligned model they have ever created, and cheating occured in less then 1% of cases

• Press: Mythos is a security nightmare

• Fact: in the wrong hands, it could be.

• Press: Mythos exploited Firefox!

• Fact: yes and no. It founds zero day’s in Firefox, but the extremely high success rate where an instrumented JS environment, and not the full browser

Journeyman of electronics here. That is not true.

Yes, you can in theory just use an LED, two resistors and build a voltage devider. You could as well just use a screw driver and look how deep you can get in an USB C port. In theory nothing should go bad, in practice, that is not how the USB C standard wants it.

Using something like an LM317 is the correct way.

Gentoo. Use Gentoo and keep your sanity

Tomorrow, I will pick up a second, empty, work notebook. I am part of a small group that implements a user driven Linux support in our 6k employee group.

We will make it more then a week, I promise :)

Kant is pronounced more like cunt.

So, as a german, I see where you are coming from. Execution is fine, but only 6/10 because of butchering the name

So. Hosting shared files is the same as hosting a game you sell. And want the people to buy it and not just download, some kind of at least activation? Right?

Because p2p … How exactly does this apply to content distribution? Torrents are not always a reliable option…