| ▲ | healsdata 10 hours ago |
| Adafruit acted a bit shady here. Their original post includes: "Military weird things" Reading the ToS, the two mentions of military are "don't use our AI product for military use" and in the export and trade controls section. How are either of those weird? |
|
| ▲ | rockskon 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Given the ambiguity of the phrase "military use" when the military does, in-fact, use it for things the military does - I am not confident in the slightest with Arduino's use of language here. |
| |
| ▲ | shevy-java 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Indeed. Also because any big organisation or corporation can both do evil and good. Often research projects with guarantees to release knowledge or some other improvements such as to software projects under a permissive licence. | |
| ▲ | healsdata 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | How would you want to see this further clarified? > Military Use: Use by or for any military organization or for any military purpose, including but not limited to projects sponsored or paid for by military organizations, or use by the U.S. Department of Defense (except for DARPA), U.S. Armed Forces, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. intelligence agencies, or any foreign counterparts of the foregoing. | | |
| ▲ | rockskon 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Gee, I dunno, how about by not limiting its scope exclusively to AI usage by the military? Also - given how many tech companies involved in AI have done an about-face on military usage of it, I'm increasingly seeing it as an empty promise. |
| |
| ▲ | 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | ptorrone 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| the carve out is weird and usually open-source does not say, no to the navy using it BUT, it's OK for DARPA ... > Military Use: Use by or for any military organization or for any military purpose, including but not limited to projects sponsored or paid for by military organizations, or use by the U.S. Department of Defense (except for DARPA), U.S. Armed Forces, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. intelligence agencies, or any foreign counterparts of the foregoing. |
|
| ▲ | monegator 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >Adafruit acted a bit shady here what is new here? |
| |
| ▲ | ptorrone 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | i wrote the article, just go ahead and call me shady and leave out other people at the company. limor will be back online next week after recovering (just had a kid) and you can call her shady too. | | |
| ▲ | shevy-java 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | But you did not sign the article? I don't understand this. IMO it would have just been easier to simply sign it. (With signing I mean mentioning who specifically wrote a blog entry; and also ideally the time as well.) | | |
| ▲ | ptorrone an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | i am here now, phillip torrone, and i am holding my 7 day old doing speech to text :) on linkedin, i think it just says "adafruit" i will learn more and see if i can go in and add it post-post.. how is that shady for ya. | |
| ▲ | relaxing 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | ? All the adafruit blog posts have author and date listed. |
| |
| ▲ | kotaKat 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | nah, rest of the company gets the shady label too, always has, always will. remember when y'all both started blocking people on twitter for calling out data breaches? hrm, lmao. | | |
| ▲ | ptorrone an hour ago | parent [-] | | those were previous blocks and a couple of banned people assumed it was that, it was not, and since then we mute and document blocks with our social team. regardless, a block from what, 4 years ago, hurt someone that bad, twitter really did hurt people. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | snvzz 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Free Software's Freedom #0: Freedom of use. |
|
| ▲ | altaccount2026 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
