Fuck AI

6212 readers

3799 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

VerbFlow@lemmy.world

MrMcGasion@lemmy.world

TootSweet@lemmy.world

BigMikeInAustin@lemmy.world

cynar@lemmy.world

drmeanfeel@lemmy.world

pavnilschanda@lemmy.world

CriticalMedicine@lemmy.world

WonderfulWanderer@lemmy.world

Communist@lemmy.ml

eatCasserole@lemmy.world

SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world

NutWrench@lemmy.world

Soup@lemmy.cafe

iAvicenna@lemmy.world

Tinks@lemmy.world

wizblizz@lemmy.world

corus_kt@lemmy.world

Prandom_returns@lemm.ee

JimSamtanko@lemm.ee

TrickDacy@lemmy.world

TheFriar@lemm.ee

ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com

HawlSera@lemm.ee

andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works

MeDuViNoX@sh.itjust.works

33550336@lemmy.world

Nougat@fedia.io

Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world

Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world

Quill7513@slrpnk.net

glowing_hans@sopuli.xyz

e8d79@discuss.tchncs.de

ThefuzzyFurryComrade@pawb.social

"No right to relicense this project" - on changing the license of Mark Pilgrim's chardet from LGPL to MIT after a vibe-coded rewrite (github.com)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by cypherpunks@lemmy.ml to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

for those not familiar with Mark Pilgrim, he is/was a prolific author, blogger, and hacker who abruptly disappeared from the internet in 2011.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.bestiver.se/post/968527

HN comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 34 points 1 day ago (1 children)

US courts have already ruled that AI generated works cannot be copyrighted, so yeah, if you vibecode something, it is not yours to license.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah. Relicensing it to MIT is really weird. Should either be Public Domain, or LGPL 😁

[–] TootGuitar@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It can’t be public domain by definition. The original work was licensed, and its license (LGPL) requires derivative works to be licensed as LGPL. There is no other choice.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 1 points 1 day ago

Yes. I just followed their argument to the logical conclusion, if it were true. Which it probably isn't.