Another person who spouts some generic policy stuff without actually making a real point. Do you think those opposing genAI haven't used it? Haven't considered the ramifications? Haven't determined whether or not it's even what it claims to be?
Or are you saying the same of genAI advocates who insist that somehow they're being discriminated against when they keep submitting garbage, overstating the degree to which genAI helped them, often lying about it, ignoring the consequences both of doing this and the impact they're having on everything from the environment to the availability of personal computing (or worse, claiming those concerned about those issues should fuck off), ignoring or even celebrating the impact they're having on incentives to create non-slop (which their fucking genAI systems rely upon! What, exactly, are you expecting genAI to work with in 5-10 years time?), and pretending the legal issues are all solved because of a couple of US jurisdiction only legal cases that have already been contradicted by a fresh US jurisdiction only case, and with no sign the Supreme Court is going to take up the issue in the near future?
Every genAI advocate comes up with this pseudo-centrist bullcrap pretending that they are the "sensible" ones who have truly evaluated whether a technology is Good(tm) or not, and pretending the opposition is just irrational hate, when they are the people who haven't evaluated jack-squat: all they've done is used it, been complemented for their wonderful analytic abilities and told how smart they are, vibe coded some kludgy crap with awful UXes that aren't anywhere close to being finished, and then pronounced on the basis of this that somehow vibe coding iS tHe fUtUrE.
If you guys were the people who were thinking about the issues:
1. You'd have addressed the elephant in the room about where the training content is going to come from in the future.
2. You'd have acknowledged that everyone except you seems to be capable of noticing your programs are fucking awful.
3. You'd be demanding genAI makers knock it off with the constant sucking up manipulative shit because nobody in their right mind thinks that's (1) likely to get you a good end-product, and (2) you know damned well it's just going to turn you into some Musk or Trump "Thinks they're God but just produces shit" figure, for similar reasons.
4. You'd acknowledge that, no, the legal situation is *not* resolved, and the likelihood that your code isn't violating a shitload of licenses you're not even aware of is, actually, extremely high: you'd be calling for clarification, not shoving this crap in your open source projects as fast as humanly possible.
But you're not.
The people who are coming up with these issues you've decided are in your way, while the nice genAI machine is telling you how right you are. Of course you're going to side with the latter.
But no, you're not the rational ones in this exercise, you're the easily manipulated ones.