Rule-wise, this seems fair.
Regardless, if AI usage continues to increase in this manner, I’ll likely be driving NetBSD, AROS, and FreeDOS by the end of the decade.
Maybe even a little TempleOS or ZealOS, for flavour.
RedoxOS has a no-LLM policy: https://gitlab.redox-os.org/redox-os/redox/-/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#ai-policy
It’s just regarding labeling. It’s unenforcable to have a project “clean” of AI.
It’s just regarding labeling.
No, it’s not: https://old.reddit.com/r/Redox/comments/1rp57nq/redox_os_has_adopted_a_certificate_of_origin/o9ixfu9/?context=1
Ok I see the intent of BDFL is different, but the linked document only mentions labeling - I can only assume the low quality etc. issues are handled as a judgement call, and in that way I consider the “No AI whatsoever” rule unenforceable.
If I use an LLM to generate code under my suprvision, review, quality check and test to be up to standard, how would it be detected I used AI if I don’t label it so? They’ll look for em-dashes in comments?
“Let’s not have rules, because some may break them!”
🤡
Rules without enforcement are just self-deception.
Then keep deceiving yourself. 🤷
deleted by creator
Given that nobody is able to guarantee that code used for training was used according to it’s license, this means no hallucinated code in Linux. Nice.
It will comply but will not compile
