Post #2099413
2026-04-23 15:39 UTC
@civodul@toot.aquilenet.fr @Profpatsch@mastodon.xyz
What a big huge dumb pile of bollocks this is
...
Yeah well, it’s a questionable categorization
Why?
I believe most credible evidence points at the likelihood that use of current generative AI leads to deskilling and prevails against upskilling. I also believe that you cannot make up with automated testing what competent human software developers avoid doing in the first place.
To me this paints a picture. Projects that allow AI use are choosing to trade off short-term gains for long-term losses. I want nothing to do with software produced with that mindset, and I question the judgement of people who welcome it. Any list that helps me identify projects heading in this direction is a great help, exactly how uBlock Origin is a great help against adware.
At a "philosophical" level, I don't think a software project that involves closed, proprietary tools (AI or otherwise) as a key part of the development process has any business calling itself "free and open source". People who only care about getting the end result faster might disagree, but to me FOSS has always been a political project, and that project is compromised by deeply incorporating proprietary technology, in my opinion. The means matter more than the ends in this view.
With all that said, I struggle to see how this is "bollocks" or "a questionable categorization". I think it's as vital as the FOSS/not FOSS distinction, or the adware/not adware distinction.
Replies (1)
-
@civodul@toot.aquilenet.fr 2026-04-23 17:04
@abucci I’m also of the opinion that, even from a purely free software perspective, putting aside the many ethical concerns (environmental and social), integrating those opaque services as part of the development workflow is a problem. I mean, “we” fought against the use of BitKeeper, and later GitHub, for free software development—among the many things people were critical about. And now all this would go through just fine? @Profpatsch