Have I? I believe I've merely chased them around their moving goalposts. When it's closed source, that's nefarious because "they're not sharing" and that's against the whole spirit of open source. When it's dogfooding with a reduced audience, it's "shoving vibe coded slop on people" (this information gleaned through magical knowledge). When that unfounded assertion is called, lo and behold: It's closed source, so bad bad bad! It's called a logical fallacy for a reason.

But more to your point: Do you believe in "guilty until proven innocent"? Do you believe that they're doing bad things with the bun code, and you can't be convinced otherwise in your judgment of them until they release the code?

More to the point, because you've been chasing them around goalposts, you've both accepted that the question at hand is unknowable precisely because the source isn't available.

> Do you believe in "guilty until proven innocent"? Do you believe that they're doing bad things with the bun code, and you can't be convinced otherwise in your judgment of them until they release the code?

Hell yes, and anyone who trusts one of the AI labs for anything important is insane.

Whether it's their initial mass piracy and then lying about it, dealmaking with the US government, or continually shifting opt-out lines on what they are and aren't training on, they haven't earned the trust to skip the "but verify" step.

Their economic incentives are too transparently aligned with ends at any costs.