Post #3863937

RE: https://infosec.exchange/@tinker/116928387853350891 I know y'all don't care about my weird realities with Ethics, but... Yeah, I'm with Linus. Those that follow me can't be surprised, but it's maybe not for the reason you think. So, I am radically against any form of moralizing over any form of purity. Any statement of the normative value of provenance encourages a moral framework that pits sociocultural values against each other. The only time these are relevant is when they are direct evidence of supporting a crime (such as slavery), or when having a rule or lacking a rule modifies the behavioral incentives toward evil. Currently, the only people making money on AI are AI companion companies. Everyone else is banking on moat / market lock in - followed by enshittification. Given that, a piece of code either: - Comes from Big AI and cost them money - Comes from Local AI and isn't supporting anyone One could argue that if Linux had a policy against it, then the corporations might use it less, but this is unlikely. In fact, Linux already has the _opposite_ problem that companies do not upstream their patches and improvements. Discouraging the upstream because of the source makes no sense. The notion that code (or art, or writing, or music) is 'tainted' because it was partially formed with AI, is not ethical thinking - it is cult moralizing.