this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2026

92 points (85.4% liked)

Technology

87450 readers

3618 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

late.sh - a cozy command-line clubhouse for computer people (late.sh)

submitted 1 month ago by Eyekaytee@aussie.zone to c/technology@lemmy.world

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 24 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] eleijeep@piefed.social 67 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I like the idea of bringing back the BBS over SSH but

This codebase was largely built with AI assistance and is set up for that workflow.

- CONTRIBUTING.md

Nah, I'll stick to IRC.

[–] Reddfugee42@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

I'm getting misty eyed just thinking about it 🥺

[+] zr0@lemmy.dbzer0.com -12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Who cares? If it is good and works, I don’t care who or what wrote the code.

[–] ohshit604@lemmy.halstead.host 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Who cares?

The people who actually spent the time writing the code and documenting it, remember these LLM’s have to learn from somewhere.

A lot of repositories use the GPL license.

The GNU General Public Licenses are a series of widely used free software licenses. The GPL is a copyleft license, which means that it guarantees end users the freedom to run, study, share, or modify the software, but if you distribute a derivative work or modification, you must provide the source code to those recipients under the same or equivalent license terms — there is no requirement to publish anything to the public at large.

I doubt many LLM’s are sighting their sources or giving proper credit when they spit out code snippets.

[–] oopsgodisdeadmybad@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 weeks ago

"sighting sources"

No proofreading skills.

[+] zr0@lemmy.dbzer0.com -10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I learned writing code for free, by looking at other code and reading online manuals.

I also learned how to play the piano by listening to people playing it and getting online sheet music for free.

I guess I am a baddie now.

[–] ohshit604@lemmy.halstead.host 22 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I learned writing code for free, by looking at other code and reading online manuals.

I also learned how to play the piano by listening to people playing it and getting online sheet music for free.

Do you have a bot army that scrapes websites and repositories? Do you not give credit when credit is due? Do you poorly plagiarize work and claim it to be your own?

While I appreciate the learning aspect, the abuse of these LLM’s is blatantly clear.

[–] RedstoneValley@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago

You're missing the point. These companies took the knowledge of the world for free and are now selling it back to us for money. Your comparison doesn't hold up. A better analogy might be a private school stealing exactly one school book and rewriting it slightly, then selling it to the pupils. And that a billion times over

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Me. I don't want to get hacked.

Don't use machine-generated code. Either it's a small snipped you'll easily understand. Or it's such a vast amount, that you can't claim any responsibity over it anyway (and if you can't, don't ship).

LLM can be a help, but they can't be your coder.

[–] ranzispa@mander.xyz 6 points 1 month ago

Do you not trust your ssh client to be secure? You should be able to connect to the most broken and vulnerable machine and an attacker should still only be able to know your IP and little more information about you.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 points 1 month ago

You are not running any machine generated code on your PC though?

[–] echo@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 month ago

Man this kinda brings me back to the IRC days. I love fun, entertaining projects like these.

[–] theherk@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

I’ve really been enjoying this today. Neat project.

[–] NM_Gringo@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

I have returned to the land of my people.

[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago

So its a worse SDF-1

[–] aproposnix@piefed.social 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

MIT licensing 🤮

[+] Reddfugee42@lemmy.world -9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I bet you can't elaborate

[–] aproposnix@piefed.social 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'll bet I can.

[–] x7HlPDq9dSNO6v3A9@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Do you fancy giving it a go for an uneducated potato such as myself? Never heard of the MIT license hate before.

[–] Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

MIT is the most popular Open Source Permissive license. It's permissive vs Copyleft like the GPL, meaning it doesn't require the same license to modifications/forks. That means new contributions to MIT licensed code can be made closed source at any time, which is why it's so popular in the Silicon Valley corporate Open Source space.

Companies love having the ability to start out Open Source so that can rapidly develop and get free code contributions from the community, then when their application gets super popular and deeply integrated, they change the license to something more restrictive to lock in customers/vendors/users and start getting more money.

That's why some folks in the FOSS community don't like it. It's still better than straight up proprietary licenses, because the old MIT version can still be forked and remain open if there is a large enough community around it, (this happened a few years ago with Terraform and Open Tofu). Best though to just start out with a Copyleft license like the GPL.

[+] ranzispa@mander.xyz -8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There are valid reasons to use an MIT license. Why do you care how someone else licenses their own code? Write your own code and license it how you prefer.

GPL was designed as a virus to end the existence or viability of copyright law. I do appreciate the idea, and plenty of my code is licensed as GPL or comparable copyleft license. Also, plenty of my code is licensed under more permissive licenses, as that is sometimes more appropriate for that code to be useful.

Do I care someone makes money out of code originating from what I wrote? I do not. Do I care whether they give me their modifications to such code? I do not.

No reason to hate on MIT license. It has its uses.

[–] Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

MIT makes sense in a Capitalist world where corpos want all the advantages of FOSS without having to give up the massive amounts of money generated and protected by IP laws.

Copyleft licensing scares them away, and anything that scares mega-corps away is probably good.

Don't get me wrong, MIT is still better than proprietary licensing, but not as good as strong Copyleft licensing like the GPL.

[–] ranzispa@mander.xyz 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There are occasions in which you do want your software to be easily adopted by large corporations.

[–] Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

Of course, that's what I said; in this Capitalist world, sometimes you have to compromise and choose a worse license in order to support FOSS.