"Middle ground" policies on genAI lead to blowups for a simple, logical reason.
"No AI" is a clear policy meaning "keep working how we did before."
"Anything goes" is a clear policy meaning "no one gets held responsible."
Anything else will be some variation on "AI accepted, but must be checked." Which is more work. The AI users won't be satisfied because avoiding work was the whole point. And non-users won't be satisfied because now they're responsible for making sure that work gets done.
Idk, maybe lots of former contributers are taking their ball and going home when those projects say "no ai." But I haven't seen any projects fold or lament the loss of supporters after instituting a hard and fast "no ai" policy. And I HAVE seen plenty of projects and orgs nearly grinding to a halt under a deluge of slop submissions.
My point being: Your policy can be just "NO." That seems to be the most workable policy.
i'm a reasonable person with even keeled views and i think we can all agree as reasonable even keeled people that i'm basically a saint for proposing the compromise position that it's ok to take a massive dump in the pool if you're really careful about it. now, i know that taking a massive disgusting shit in the pool is horrifically unhygienic, and it could cause tiny little babies to get sick, but you also have to admit that it saves a lot of time and is basically the future.
So we hear people complaining wind turbine blades supposedly can't be recycled. This isn't true, but even if it were: over its lifetime, a large wind turbine (11MW, offshore), will generate the electrical equivalent of burning ~200,000 tons of coal in an efficient thermal power plant. The total weight of these terrible blades? 100 tons. So spare me the whining.
A picture I took last night.
Two things can be true.
1. Gas prices are skyrocketing because of Trump's illegal war and that's bad for consumers and the economy.
2. Gas prices should be higher because their cost doesn't include the massive environmental and #climate damages fossil fuels cause.
100% agreed and I’d also add: there is very rarely a disadvantage to adopting a technology late.
Of the people who adopt early (assuming a technology that has real benefits), a few will make massive wins. A lot will make mistakes in the adoption and end up with no benefits and a big opportunity cost.
How are all of the early adopters of NFTs going?
As I recall, OpenBSD (might have been NetBSD) was one of the first F/OSS projects to have a public revision-control repository, rather than a private one and publish tarballs for non-committers to use. How did being first help them relative to people doing this later? They’re still using CVS, if that helps answer the question.
Apple entered a smartphone market dominated by other players, but did it at exactly the point where capacitive touchscreens were mature enough to replace resistive ones, were getting high enough yields that large ones were feasible and cheap, and when data plans had caps that were just about usable. How did coming late to the market harm them?
These are, of course, cherry picked examples. More broadly, look at companies that jumped on the web bandwagon before and after the .com boom. A lot that were all-in early went bankrupt. A few became enormous businesses. But most of the late adopters did reasonably well. Facebook wasn’t founded until after the crash. Most of the online supermarket delivery market in the UK is held by companies that didn’t do delivery until after the crash (though the leader has had one of the longest online presences of any UK retailer: they started on CompuServe back before anyone took web-based shops seriously).
A ‘wait and see’ attitude to new tech generally doesn’t hurt.
A thought on considering AI policies for FOSS projects: who will you attract , and who will you repel with the policy?
If you reverse the polarity later, will the “damage” on either side be repairable if the policy turned out to be bad?
e.g. if you say “no LLMs for now, maybe never” what’s the downside, and the upside? And vice versa: what’s the one-year, two-year risk of accepting LLM content?
ISTM that a no-LLM policy, for code, content, communications, is lower risk than a pro- or tolerant policy. But maybe I’m missing something.
From a purely pragmatic POV, I there are still risks from accepting LLM code just based on maintainability, sustainability, and institutional knowledge. My theory is that LLM using contributors are going to show less attachment to a project, because the way that LLMs (seemingly) reduce friction to creating PRs.
From an adoption standpoint, I wonder: which and how many users will be put off if a project goes LLM, versus the other way?
I’m sure there are some people who’ll drop a project if it declares a no-LLM policy, but ISTM fewer people in that camp and … well, it’s a value judgement which camp you’d rather nurture.
#EuroBSDCon2026 has finished for me. I had a blast. @EuroBSDCon thank you for a well organized event. I had a flawless experience.
I wasn't even going to post it here, because it's just a rant that felt good to jot down, but since it's now been on the hackernews front page and shared elsewhere, it looks like it touched a nerve:
(Read the comments at your own risk. There's brain worms there, too.)
https://www.netmeister.org/blog/everybodys-lost-their-minds.html
If you were unable to attend EuroBSDCon 2026 in Brussels, or had to choose between parallel sessions, you can now see the talks directly from the talk descriptions on the program page https://events.eurobsdcon.org/2026/schedule/ or peertube: https://exquisite.tube/c/ebc2026/videos
@eurobsdcon #eurobsdcon #bsd #openbsd #netbsd #freebsd #unix #unixlike #freesoftware #libresoftware
So, OpenAI admits two things in disclosures presented to the court:
Meanwhile, the EFF filed an amicus brief in the case claiming that this use is exactly what was intended by the ‘To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts’ justification for the existence of copyright in the US Constitution.
Hot take: drug decriminalisation isn't enough.
Legalise it.
Just fucking rip the bandaid off.
Give a legal supply route, tax it, discourage it. People clearly get drugs anyway. You might as well ensure the supply is clean.
Telling people what to do with their bodies is a failed policy that never works in the long-run. The state should not have an interest in what people do with their bodies.
Treat it as a public health issue, not a criminal issue at all.
RE: https://zeroes.ca/@FknHannu/117275420554185475
Normalize not letting people wallow with the slopbots when they're grieving. Normalize getting your friends the help they need when you see them falling into this pit of desperation or loneliness.
Normalize not normalizing whatever the hell this is.
@spiegelmama @neurovagrant
"Guys help why is my demon core doing this?"
#physics #science #experiment #meme #memes #nuclear #cat #cats #catsOfMastodon
The @EuroBSDCon conference has been a great success. Seeing "old" friends and making new ones. It's been a blast
Heartfelt thank you to everyone whom was at EuroBSDCon - including the stream viewers. It was a blast. And still, couldn't talk to everyone whom I wanted to talk to and give everyone the attention they deserve.
You all rock. Really.
See you next year in Bratislava, through the pipe at Exquisite.tube or through whatever communication channel
Family picture!
FreeBSD hacker. Has been known to touch pf and lived to regret it.
Strong opinions on bikes and the need to crush all cars into tiny cubes. More strong opinions about bullshit machines.
Rather foolishly volunteered to run EuroBSDCon 2026 in Brussels.
Ceterum autem censeo FTP esse delendam.