Paul Ganssle @pganssle@qoto.org

*Words mean what people think they mean and there is no objective true definition here, but one definition has historical weight to it and feels more official as the definition doesn't originate from basically a mistake.

@hynek True, but I'm thinking basically having good taste buys us a few extra years, not decades, so it's not *that* self serving 😉

@hynek Good time to have built a whole brand around being good at seeing the whole picture, crafting strong and sustainable processes and thinking deeply about design as you have (and to a lesser extent I have).

@hynek It seems to me that unless something really changes about the trajectory of AI, human software skills will not be that relevant in the fairly near future.

I suspect that one of the skills that will stay most relevant for longest will be taste and design principles.

@feoh @brianokken
> One such test for Python code, called a pytest, had its own specific prompt that caught my eye:

Lol. Glad to see NYT still upholds the same high journalistic standards I have come to expect from them 😛

@kevin They might grow them on the berry farm.

@nowis They could start with this one, to finally make it more available to Argentine audiences 😉

@hynek @sirosen Yeah but I'm saying that saying "the onus is on you" is the equivalent of uploading full episodes of TV shows to YouTube with "No copyright infringement intended" in the description. I could be wrong but unless you are asking for indemnification, at the end of the day I don't think anything there protects you from contributor negligence. I even kind of wonder if the whole "please remove AI attribution" part could bite you because in scenario 4 you might be seen at wink wink nudge nudge encouraging people to conceal their copyright infringement from you.

@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 😛