What’s with all the faux accelerationist shit on here the last few days?

Right - I cant imagine there are enough rare metals in those components that would make them more valuable as scrap than as working server grade components

Kinda, but they’re specifically saying the the AI agent cannot itself tag the contribution with the sign-off - like, someone using Claude Code to submit PRs on their behalf. The developer must add the tag themselves, indicating that they at least reviewed and submitted it themselves, and it wasn’t just an agent going off-prompt or some other shit and submitting it without the developer’s knowledge. This is saying ‘the dog ate my homework’ is not a valid excuse.

The developer can use AI, but they must review the code themselves, and the agent can’t “sign-off” on the code for them.

Also - what will holding the submitter responsible even achieve?

What does holding any individual responsible on a development team do? The Linux project is still responsible for anything they put out in the kernel just like any other project, but individual developers can be removed from the contributing team if they break the rules and put it at risk.

The new rule simply makes the expectations clear.

I imagine it has plenty of use cases for blue team as well, just not as many for active threat response.

The risk of that is relatively low for kernel contributions, though. Most of the work being done is porting existing protocols/firmware into the latest Linux kernel, not creating novel features.

The larger risk is instability caused by bad, hallucinated code because it was submitted under the assumption of human authorship. In both cases, further review by the Linux team can be done if they understand where that code is coming from.

Banning AI does nothing, because theres no way of knowing who uses it without proper disclosure, which wouldnt happen if it were banned. To use an example from the article, it would be like banning code written with the use of a specific brand of keyboard.

Better to have it properly disclosed than to make it illicit

That would be true even if they didn’t use AI to reproduce it.

The problem being addressed by the Linux foundation isn’t the use of copyrighted work in developer contribution, it’s the assumption that the code was authored by them at all just because it’s submitted in their name and tagged as verified.

Does that make sense?

Even if this were true, it would only mean that the GNU license is unenforceable, not that the Linux kernel itself is infringing copyright

Yup

People want to pretend as if everything that flows downstream from the creation of LLMs is illegal, but that’s just not the reality.

The Linux Kernel is under a copyleft license - it isnt being copyrighted.

But the policy being discussed isn’t allowing the use of copyrighted code - they’re simply requiring any code submitted by AI be tagged as such so that the human using the agent is ultimately responsible for any infringing code, instead of allowing that code go undisclosed (and even ‘certified’ by the dev submitting it even if they didnt write or review it themselves)

Submissions are still subject to copyright law - the law just doesnt function the way you or OP are suggesting.

Yup.

I would also just point out that this doesnt change the legal exposure to the Linux kernel to infringing submissions from before the advent of LLMs.

LLMs themselves being products of copyright isnt the legal question at issue, it’s the downstream use of that product.

If I use a copyright-infringing work as a part of a new creative work, does that new work infringe copyright by default? Or does the new work need to be judged itself as to the question of infringing a copyrighted work?

And if it is judged as infringing, who is responsible for the damage done? Can I pass the damages back to the original infringing work? Or should I be held responsible for not performing due diligence?

If you think “bad” is too vague, then that isnt a new problem.

Linux has always had to reject ‘bad’ code submissons - what’s new here is that the kernel team isnt willing to prejudice all AI code as “bad”, even if that would be easier.

That’s not really how copyright law works.

Your average American would be wrong, too.

You’re justifying their executions

Only if you’re incapable of holding two thoughts in your head at the same time.

If your perspective on international anti-government protests is seriously challenged by the involvement of clandestine CIA support, I have really bad news for you

Arming oppositional forces of our foreign adversaries is possibly the most consistent function of the CIA, and yet im supposed to doubt their involvement in the violent outbreak in Iran that happened just as the US was planning to start a war?

Nevermind how untrustworthy Trump is as a messenger - i would be surprised if we weren’t

Pretty sure someone was able to pose as a PI and get paid access a while ago.

Darknet Diaries had an episode on it

Important to note that it isnt just ads. Any app on your phone with location permission can share it, including some OEM aps qnd bloatware depending on the phone.

If you dont want to be seen, dont take your phone. About the only reasonable way to be sure your data isnt being collected is to not create the data in the first place.

Stay safe out there.

Birthright isnt a loophole.

If you want to abolish billionaires, you dont need to deal in xenophobic scaremongering to do it; but if you want to abolish birthright, you gotta play all the notes of xenophobia. The billionaire flair is just the lib-spin.

The WSJ publishing this story should tell you everything you need to know about its intent

Edit: otherwise they would be writing about how billionaires are exploiting inheritance

It’s already a bi-partisan consensus that China shouldn’t have billionaires

Fortunately for them, they can’t do anything about the billionaire problem - so instead they’ll focus on the xenophobia