"Look, I wrote this neat highly advanced machine vision thing to help people with accessibility needs communicate with loved ones! ❤️. MIT licensed I guess! Let's make the world better!"

Raytheon, Northropp, Boeing, Microsoft, three-letter-agencies suddenly fork it as a base for their own "projects."

😐

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 points 1 day ago

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/may/02/geoffrey-hinton-godfather-of-ai-quits-google-warns-dangers-of-machine-learning

https://medium.com/syncedreview/yolo-creator-says-he-stopped-cv-research-due-to-ethical-concerns-b55a291ebb29

There's some stuff I also would like to work on adjacent to these things but the risk outweigh the good for as long as these psychotic people are in charge (and some things will just generally always be risky).

[–] nykula@piefed.social 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Institutions with monopoly on violence or companies that they deal with don't care whether software is released as MIT or AGPL, they just take it and build on it. (Maybe that's exactly what you mean though, I'm not sure.)

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 2 points 1 day ago

Hehe yeah I guess that's what I meant. Just making a statement on how software has become I guess, and maybe a bit about how highly permissive licenses might have unintended consequences.

The open source spirit is one of the shining jewels of the human race, but it really sucks that I don't think any of those "You aren't allowed to use my code to make the world a worse place" clauses would actually hold up. =\