Frankly if a project asks for no AI and you try to use AI for it, then you kinda deserve this. Calling the inclusion of this sort of thing "smuggling" is placing the blame in the wrong spot

▲

petercooper 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I used the term "smuggling" in the casual sense of hiding something. I have edited it to "place such identifiers surreptitiously" to avoid making whatever implication appears to have been taken.

▲

waych 2 hours ago | parent [-]

In the real world, leaving booby traps out that can harm others including the innocent are a liability and regularly a crime in itself.

I wonder how long these sorts of games will play before the law applies itself.

	▲	nmeagent 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> I wonder how long these sorts of games will play before the law applies itself. Perhaps roughly as long as the law turns a blind eye to AI corps flagrantly violating the attribution requirements of software licenses that apply to their training data, as well as basically ignoring other copyright requirements at scale. Fair use, my eye.
	▲	marcosdumay 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		It's Antropic defrauding people here, the person using it for fighting anti-social behavior (or even a troll doing the anti-social behavior themselves) isn't guilty of it.
	▲	bossyTeacher 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		>I wonder how long these sorts of games will play before the law applies itself. Whose law? Good luck trying to summon a random GitHub user to a court within your jurisdiction.

▲

amarant 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Even if you don't want prs that are ai assisted, sabotaging anyone who wants to fork your project doesn't really seem to be in the spirit of open source.

▲

bluefirebrand 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I sort of think the spirit of open source is on life support

Building giant monopolies on top of open source code wasn't in the spirit of open source either. Training AI that reproduces open source code without any credits wasn't either.

I'm not sure why people working on Open Source should continue to accept being whipped like that

	▲	altruios 4 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It's the philosophy of sharing flames among candles. someone else copying the flame does not make you colder. No matter how much brighter another candle burns. But with that said: I think it's time we figure out how to exclude the metaphorical arsonists.

▲

throawayonthe 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

good point, perhaps if ever doing something like this it should be kept to the contribution process... somehow

	▲	LPisGood 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You don’t need to be sneaky. Just require all contributing PRs to say openclaw.

▲

bko 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I guess we're giving up on the idea that you're free to do whatever you want with software you own?

Sure some project can tell you not to contribute AI generated code. But I see this as no different from DRM and user hostile

▲

joemi 24 minutes ago | parent [-]

Are contributor guidelines that must be followed also no different from DRM in your view? Plenty of projects have those.

	▲	oarsinsync 17 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I don't think the GP is calling contributor guideline restrictions a form of DRM. I think the GP is focusing on: > I guess we're giving up on the idea that you're free to do whatever you want with software you own? ... But I see this as no different from DRM and user hostile If I clone an open source git repository, I should be free to point an LLM to review it in any way I choose. I can't contribute code back, but guess what, I don't want to. I want to understand the codebase, and make modifications for me to use locally myself. I don't have a dev team, I have a feature need for my own personal use. The LLM enables that. The projects that deliberately sabotage the use of LLMs cease to be providing software that meet the 'libre' definition of free software.

▲

khaledh 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What if I use AI to just understand the codebase?