Paul Ganssle @pganssle@qoto.org

@sirosen @hynek What is missing as a possibility? My analysis is basically saying that scenario 4 is the only one where maintainers incur legal risk so it's the only one you need to think about when designing a policy to protect yourself from uncertainty here. If there is another scenario where the maintainer has legal risk - especially where a more likely one - I would love to hear it.

@hynek @konstin I'm not sure the people who need these rules *are* going to lie. My mental model for someone who vibe spams OSS projects is someone who thinks they are being helpful (or someone trying to get bug bounties) but are clueless. They probably won't bother even tweaking their prompt to tell it to sound like a human because they don't see it as something to conceal.

Maybe there are people who are trying to just pump their contribution numbers for some dubious reason but I suspect those people would follow the same rules as phishing scams: don't get too sophisticated with it because it is a numbers game and you want to be rejected early by less gullible types.

@hynek @sirosen I think if only for practical purposes in almost all jurisdictions it will be scenario 1 or 2 and no one likely to sue "small fries" over this, but if you think there is a real possibility of legal issues it might be worth trying to see if someone with legal expertise might be willing to come up with a more solid strategy for damage control (I would think this is something that would make sense to do in a standard way, like maybe the OSI or Creative Commons generates some standard boilerplate)

@hynek @sirosen The legal stuff in that AI policy isn't sitting quite right with me. I understand the concern with the legal status of AI generated content but I think the menu of outcomes here is probably some combination of:

1. AI generated content is owned by the person who wrote the prompt
2. AI generated content is not eligible for copyright
3. AI generated content is owned by the model owner (or the model itself??)
4. AI generated content is a derivative work of its training data and context

If it's 1 or 2 you are fine because 1 is equivalent to hand-written code and 2 is equivalent to incorporating public domain code (modulo jurisdictions that CC-0 was created to address). 3 is probably also fine because it's roughly a work for hire.

Scenario 4 means that those contributions are derivative works of a combination of a bunch of GPL and proprietary works and the contributor doesn't have the right to offer it under a less restrictive license in the first place, so "you take legal responsibility" doesn't seem like it helps the situation. If you are asking the contributor to indemnify you if it turns out they had no legal right to contribute and you get sued by someone claiming attrs is now a derivative work of their material? If so you should probably be explicit about that.

Would it be valuable for me to comment about this in the issue / PR?

Also interesting is that it is just Spain / Latin America, though everyone I talk to seems to think that Chilean Spanish is only barely mutually intelligible with the rest of the world, and Argentina/Uruguay seem pretty far out of distribution as well, but that all gets lumped together with "Latin American" Spanish.

Mind you my wife basically always needs subtitles for UK shows (not sure why I'm better at understanding them, it might be because I watched a lot of British shows in college), but that is just to parse the words. We generally wouldn't want a *translation*.

@kevin Also what about the reverse where the user posted something, you unfollow, then someone boosts it into your TL again. Seems like you definitely want to filter in that case.

Not that I have the time or skills to implement such a thing, I just have a true passionate for user requirements 😛

@kevin Wouldn't it also need to check to see if anyone the user is following had boosted it as well?

Another edge case to consider: what if it was posted before you started following someone but boosted afterwards? Still filter or let it through?

Do you also want to suppress boosts from old content, like if it is from a week ago? A year ago?

@brass75 This has been a more general phenomenon for me as well. First time on the manager side doing the hiring had me realizing how much I stumbled into getting my own job. First time making a project budget, doing performance review calibrations as a manager, all of it gives you a ton of insight about how to engage with these processes.

@autonomousapps @wilfredh Pretty much all big tech be like

@baconandcoconut I, too, have derangement syndrome derangement syndrome 😛

@webology (To be clear I am just joking around because I think it is funny to imagine a person who would make this mistake)

@webology Must be a regional thing. In the northeast they spell it "calendar".

@webology My calendars usually only last 1 year, but they are usually made of paper instead of steel...

@jefftk Where did you get the estimate of 5-10% of Americans qualifying? The population of Canada is ~12% of the US population, so that would increase the population of Canada by ~1.5-2x, though I imagine practically speaking the vast majority of eligible people will not do anything with this.

I have nothing but a gut feeling to go by, but I suspect legal barriers to immigration are not the major reason preventing US citizens from doing whatever it is that Canadian citizenship allows them to do (work in Canada, vote in Canadian elections, etc).

@jefftk You have to apply for it, right?