In this context, AI is just a compiler that turns human-readable source code into machine-readable code. I mean, gcc does that too. Bison writes C code for you. IDEs help you edit. Spell checkers do your "look in the dictionary" job for you. We've had code-generating tools for a long time now, AI is just another one. Today's programmers are no longer involved in writing assembler, tomorrow's programmers will no longer be involved in writing C. How many of you can do low-level programming *now* ? How many people *today* write low quality programs with the existing tools?

What's different now is that AI disconnects you from the resulting logic in a way that previous tools didn't. Then again, C disconnects you from what the assembler does, just not as much. Python even more so. ESPHome "programs" are just YAML files. This trait enables more people to "write code", which is good, but increases the amount of bad code as much as it increases the good. We as a coding community need to figure out how to map our ideals and ethics to this new tool. What is "open source" if the compiler is an LLM instead of gcc? What is the source code? How do you reproduce or validate LLM-generated programs? Who will be providing the "core intelligence" that LLMs train on? There aren't many people who can write or maintain compilers any more, will we have the same problem with AI in the future? How do we recognize the effort, creativity, and authorship that goes in to "programming" with an LLM?

IMHO taking a general "for" or "against" position wrt AI/LLMs is not useful. We should take positions for or against *how* it's is used, and how we can "use it for good, not evil." Past generations thought computers were unobtainable magic. Today's generation has the Internet in its pocket. Future generations will wonder how we luddites survived without AI. It's up to us to figure out how to get there.

Besides, who doesn't want a compiler that reads the documentation and helps you write code? ;-)

Only if that NFT, itself, is delivered by carrier pigeon.

I think the problem is that the first step is actually "Make an expensive system that's free to use, that we don't know how to sustainably pay for."

... but they have separate sets of engineers, and this clarifies that engineers from both organizations will be included.

"from upstream development through production environments."
"to secure open source software at its source and across the entire supply chain."
"Share fixes upstream so that open source communities can include them in long-term maintenance."
"Upstream maintenance alongside open source community leaders;"

Please read the whole thing.

You do understand that the freedom and licenses you're defending, specifically allow others to use your work for purposes you don't agree with, right?
If you're opposed to "evil" (but legal) uses of FLOSS, you're opposed to the core values of FLOSS.

In my experience... if I ask Claude to help with something that's my strong point (like my core coding), it's like training a junior programmer, and I can solve my problems faster myself. But... when I need something outside my core expertise, like helper programs, wrappers, or interfaces to other technologies I'm not familiar with, it's a very fast way to get 95% of the way there without wasting time climbing the learning curve myself for a one-time need.
Like any tool, you have to know when to use it and when not to, and what its strengths and weak points are.

All jokes aside, this is more useful as "a button next to my bed that shuts off all the inside and outside lights, closes all the doors, activates the alarm, turns down the heat, makes sure the tv is off, and disables notifications until the morning."

I've also seen one used as "a button to hit on your way to work to shut off all the things you forgot to shut off."

A panic button next to your bed could be "turn on all the outside lights, save all the security camera footage somewhere extra, and tell me if any motion detectors outside this room go off any time in the next 10 minutes."

I imagine someone will want one that makes their cell phone make a noise, so they can find it.

Or, it's a simple way to add a second switch to a room (or hallway) with one inconveniently-placed switch.

For a young child who is afraid of the dark, a button to dim the lights to 20% after they're in bed, and automatically turn them off an hour later.

A wireless doorbell.

Etc.

I suspect a large majority of the money spent towards open source is in the form of support contracts, yes, but large contracts paid by large companies to large projects. The problem is that a majority of the *projects* are small, often single person, and *those* do not have a good way of funding their work. There is no web of small companies paying small projects keeping the greater open source community healthy, and so smaller projects have to look to other ways to fund work.

"I really don't see how people aren't more productive with AI."
A couple of things:
1. The right tool for the job. We know how to use AI productively, but for us, AI in search is not it. YMMV.
2. DDG users tend to be a self-selected group of people who don't want computers to remember everything we said and maybe regurgitate it later to someone else
3. Every new technology has a choice between "go slow and understand the ramifications" and "go fast and break things". We prefer to not break things.
4. We know how to ask ChatGPT stuff when we need an AI answer. We don't need everything on one page.
5. Some people prefer the comfort of the known, to the stress of the unknown, and need more time to adapt to new tech.

It sounds like you can get some tax advantages that are specific to 401(k) if you, as a business, decide to do 100% unlimited matching for your you, as the employee, allowing you to get 401(k) advantages but with twice the effective limit.

Not quite true. If a customer gave a binary to someone else, the customer would have to give access to the source code to that someone else. Red Hat has no obligation in this case. This is because Red Hat uses 3(a) to distribute sources, not 3(b) or 3(c).

Under 3(a) when you download the binary from Red Hat, you have the option of downloading the sources from the same site at the same time. Once you download the sources, or choose not to, Red Hat's GPL obligation is complete[*]. You don't get to point at Red Hat and say "get the sources from them, not me" nor do you get to wait a year and come back crying because you didn't download the sources when you had the chance.

[*] technically, Red Hat's obligation continues as long as they continue to offer the binaries to you, but once the offer of the binary is withdrawn, the offer of the sources is no longer required.

Communication is about what the reader understands, not what the writer says. If the reader got the right impression, the right words were used.

Plus, "monopolized" may apply to a group. Journalists have this tool called a "dictionary" that tells them what words mean:
monopolize /mnäplz/ verb
past tense: monopolized; past participle: monopolized
* (of an organization or group) obtain exclusive possession or control of (a trade, commodity, or service). "they instituted press censorship and monopolized the means of communication"
* have or take the greatest share of. "the bigger teams monopolize the most profitable sponsorships and TV deals"

Remember, *being* a monopoly is not illegal in the USA. *Acting* like a monopoly is, and it's possible to act like a monopoly without being one. The papers are arguing that big tech, collectively, are taking advantage of their market dominance to exclude smaller players. The papers are not arguing that there's only one of them.

Yup! People think that $206B is a lot and say it should be used to help the poor, but consider that $206B evenly spread across *just* the population of the USA is only $628 per person. Would an extra paycheck or two fix any long-term problems? Probably not. But, all that money in the hands of one person apparently can (1) employ lots of people, (2) push the boundaries of science and technology, and (3) inspire people to create a better future.

As for the fact that he *has* lots of money and can spend it how he pleases is, well, a side effect of capitalism. You don't agree? Start your own megacompany and show us how it's done ;-)

One of my graduate projects was analyzing a modification to ALOHAnet. Weeks of simulation and twenty pages of calculus just to approximate the answer, it was one of the toughest - and most rewarding - questions I've ever sought to answer. So while I never knew him, his work still sparked a memorable time in my life.