I need food in my house.

If you were worth listening to, you wouldn't have needed help to write that comment.

So far US courts have said that person cannot have a copyright.

This might change up in the future, but so far, the prompter is not considered to be a creator.

That comment was about what if that code is later determined to have a copyright apply to it.

I think AI copyright is going to kill Linux. Allowing uncopyrightable code into your project could be determined by a court to destroy your whole license, forcing ALL your code to be released as uncopyrightable and putting GPL-licensed code into the public domain where it can be monetized by corporations without having to give anything back. None of this is how copyright law is supposed to work, but if I've learned one thing about governments and laws and courts it's that they often aren't created for our benefit.

I would not trust ChatGPT to do literally any of those things correctly, as they can all be misinterpreted, and even when I ask AI to answer simple questions it often does that. If I want a timer, I run the timer app on my phone. If I want a reminder tomorrow, I run the calendar app on my phone. There's no question about whether it got the information into it I wanted, because I can see that I put it in there. I don't have to wonder whether the LLM will fail to put the information in, but then confidently tell me it did it correctly, and then tell me I was correct to push back when it didn't do it and I'm late tomorrow. Fuck all of that, all day every day, and anyone who thinks it's an improvement is not only mentally deficient but also training themselves to be even moreso.

There's probably at least a smattering of middle managers here convinced that they "get it" because they read Slashdot. This slashvertisement is aimed at them.

There is no such thing, there never has been, and such a thing is undesirable. We do not want or need a paper which simply repeats claims as they are made. We need the media to compare claims to facts. It's not the media's fault that the reich wing lies more.

It's hard to say, because those courts have usually decided in favor of rights holders, and they are how we got a copyright cartel in the first place.

I'm finding that ZFS is stupid, and I'm thinking about switching to normal dmraid.

Notably, if you really load it up for a while such that it has a chance to fill up its buffers, it doesn't save any I/O for anything else. The whole system just gets punched right in the fucking balls and becomes completely unusable while the cache empties. Maybe there's some way to tune this tendency out of it, but...SANE DEFAULTS!!! If your project doesn't have them, you're a fuckup! Allowing one process to make a system unusable, that's a fuckup!

When you combine that with the raging arrogant attitudes of about 50% of ZFS think-they're-experts and all of the things which ZFS should be able to do which you're told not to do (like rotating a disk from a 3-way mirror as a short term backup strategy) it becomes clear that it's actually a big joke. The proponents say ZFS can do everything, then they tell you not to do thing after thing and it becomes clear it can only do about half of what they claim.

We had discussions about this here at the time. You may feel free to locate and review them so we don't have to have them again. TL;DR: no clue about Arch, but Debian pushed the decision through with less consensus than usual to support the new GNOME, which depended on it, and which statistically no one was asking for.

It's a bunch of utilities that depend on the same libraries and one another, you cannot just separate out any pieces you want and use them independently, some of them come in packs and using one implies using the next, or having a real bad time. That is the root of the complaint about systemd not following the Unix way.

Yes, the KDE devs are smarter and more competent than the GNOME devs.

But no, you can't. This becomes immediately apparent when you try to talk to them in the way you would talk to a normal person. You ask them for something which should be simple because what you want to know is what most people would want to know. You ask it the simple question and it frequently takes the most obscure view of the question possible. So then you have to rephrase the question once or twice to be incredibly specific in a way that would be unnecessary if you were talking to a human, since they are also humans and know what specifics you were expecting to have addressed.

...who might be wrong.

We don't yet know how AI output is going to interact with copyright.

So far you cannot copyright any AI output. That means you don't have the right to specify the license for it, either, because all software licenses are powered by copyright.

Courts might even decide that the original copyrights apply. But which? The ones to code that looks the most like yours? Or every license which applied to any code which might have been involved in the creation of the output? Nobody knows yet.

As such, you run into a trap when trying to decide if the output is open source. Does it only mean that you can see the source code, or is the license relevant? Do you actually have to have legal permission to use or at least see the code? Most would say yes, if you don't have the legal right, then being able to see the code is meaningless since you can't actually use it without poisoning projects with some other license — or no license.

TL;DR: It is very much still up in the air whether it is reasonable to describe any AI generated source code as "open source".

Microsoft has probably the most illustrious history of bugs where just visiting a website or opening an email can get your system hacked, but you're right, this is not a problem unique to them.

These days, Lookout asks you before it loads any images from outside your organization...