Clearly there's a political project behind the design of those tools. Clearly our industry is lacking enough class consciousness to push back against the "AI overlords" agenda.
Clearly the situation of copyright around LLM uses is complex. It's easy to fall into code which can't be copyrighted if there's not enough human input to produce the work (and keep in mind that "prompting" is likely not enough input). This also raises questions about potential copyright violations. Looks like following the guidelines of the SFC for contributing to Free Software projects is getting especially important.
The executive summary is good. This is also a nice source of reference papers and studies on the topic. It shows quite well why the work is moving to the harnesses rather than the models. Indeed models probably won't improve much in terms of reliability. It all points once again towards a needed shift of people attention from the shiny toys and towards team practice instead.
Very good opinion piece going back to Naur's and Brook's important papers about software production. It's a sobering take on how LLM can't bring the promised productivity gains. This is not saying it can't bring productivity gains of course but it'll never be as dramatic as what the current hype cycle pushes people to believe.
Interesting policy. I think it strikes a good balance.
Funny, I was using that exact same term recently: "brute-force driven development". It describes fairly well how the harnesses work.
In other words: the security boundaries of coding agents are very porous and not where you expect. Handle with extreme care until they have a proper security model.
The hardware prices are nuts right now... and there's no end in sight yet.
An illustration of the political and ethical acumen being low in our profession in general and in some (most?) Open Source projects in particular...
There's clearly an issue with the security and privacy practice of those companies...
Really this kind of AI push is a bad move for employers, especially when interacting with FOSS communities so much. This forces people to pass the ethical issues onto volunteers...
The data set is rather small but the trend is really bad. So much reviewer time wasted due to AI slop... this time on the Flathub side.
You sure you can trust those systems? It's proprietary software and they're clearly on a slippery slop. For something so security sensitive this is concerning.
Very sobering opinion piece. For all the talks about a China / USA race, it feels more like two flavors of the same dystopia. The race is just here to justify acting against their own population interest. The result is then the increase in illiberal fixations and nihilistic world views. This can't end well.
This is an interesting proposal, let's hope it gets picked up and appear in more licenses.
A very balanced set of recommendations from the SFC around LLM uses. It's just the beginning and still lacks a bit in details. It's very welcome though and I look forward to their updates.
There's really something nasty at play. Those coding agents are clearly not insulated from the system enough and to easy to manipulate to exfiltrate sensitive information.
Indeed, if the rsync maintainer can't handle a coding assistant properly... who can?
Very interesting take. This gives very valid ground on why tech communities should reject AI based contributions. Not doing so will indeed hinder the commons communities rely on to exist and improve. This is a path to prevent getting better at inclusivity and diversity (which is really needed).
Interesting point... Didn't think about it this way. We'll see I guess. Maybe human made services will actually get a premium rate indeed. Wouldn't be a bad outcome I guess?