The shower head design is a crime against humanity for the cost of that machine.

Anthropic has had this happen at least once.

They didn't even realize it happened until openAI captured headlines and they started looking more carefully at past history.

None of the frontier labs are behaving responsibly when it comes to this stuff. OpenAI seems to have it happen more often, but this is one of those situations where 1 time is too many.

The difference is that with llms you have multiple levels of nondeterminism compounding each other

That is very much a similarity.

This has been common place for at least 20 years at this point.

We did it as my very first startup and we were stupid children back then.

Kind of telling that OpenAI didn’t.

> people have to have a chance to leave.

They did give people that chance.. That's kind of what the entire article is about. They literally did leave.

> One should first ask permission, and, if we are in a good mood, we might "let them" pursue their happiness.

yes... this is called the law...

Lots of peoples "pursuit of happiness" is hindered by the law because we've deemed it not good for society.

Last time I checked building companies that offer goods and services was considered good for society.

I actually lived in a society where this was illegal and we were all starving and freezing.

There's also the fact that alphabet should have been broken up into about a dozen companies over a decade ago

Larry would still be rich as heck, but probably... less rich..

> Do you really believe that landlords will subsidize tenants for a long time?

This literally happens all the time in California.

You buy a house in CA. You move somewhere else. You hold on to the house because your property taxes are fixed and housing prices grow like crazy here. Maybe your kids will want it. Maybe you'll want to move back..

You can't charge enough rent to cover the mortgage and taxes os you end up taking a loss monthly.

Yep: the problem with IP is exactly the "Property". The texts are economically (even if only for leisure) valuable, so the producer deserves a fair comoensation unless he has explicitly dismissed it.

So paying a price for an intelectual product is reasonable. Nothing to do (per se) with property.

And if attribution is their coin then they should be properly attributed even if they aren't paid.

You don't and that's why everyone gets so angry and annoyed when people try to force precise definitions.

There's no team of lawyers verifying the provenance of all code/projects submitted to codeberg. THe policy is just something they can point to as a general guidelines of what kind of shit they want to support.

Everyone knows exactly what kind of projects they're talking about. The people trying to nitpick definitions are those annoying ass people at the board game night that spend half the time combing through the rule book trying to figure out why whatever they didn't like was against the rules.

That's why they say they don't need an AI detector and that anyone who complains about the rule is guilty.

Ordinarily that's a bad way to run a rule. But not this time!

What the folks involved were actually saying, and what let slip multiple times through all those threads is: Any use of the tool is Wrong(tm). They never meant anything by the "majority" or "vibe-coded" or whatever because they didn't need to or want to; Multiple people let slip in all sorts of forums what the intent was: define a policy ambiguous enough that it could be used for frankly vibe-based exclusion. Defining the terms of exclusion was deliberately avoided because a) if-you-know-you-know b) they wanted to reserve the freedom to sit in judgement.

That's fine for new projects. Their sandbox and they can decide who plays in it. But the people who were using codeberg for months or even years and relying on it, and had to move... deserved better treatment.

Fomr my eyes the questions about what defines "majority" were well-intention-ed queries with the motive of trying to ferret out what the criterion for was in the eyes of the people who proposed the vote. That they refused to answer, and cast aspersions on the people who asked... is both a damning judgement on their personal character but also their community management.

What we have is a community defining an in-group and an out-group. And just like middle school, "you'll just know" if you're in one or the other.,

Good grief. What a bizarre cultish echo chamber. The tools make you dirty. Don't touch the tools.

Why put words in their mouth? They clearly mean a majority. They don't want projects that are majority written by LLMs. If they didn't want projects that an LLM had ever been anywhere near, they would've just said that. They're not under any shareholder pressure to lie.

And now you're literally saying that a "no vibecoded projects" rule is a slippery slope to actual fascism. Good grief! What nonsense!