open source asked what the ai policy should be, I answered with the below and /u/Wolvereness/ banned me with the reason “no LLM comments were allowed” and when I asked what he thought was LLM said
“r/opensource MOD 5:53 PM I guess it’s a mystery why your feedback so closely resembles the inherent flaws of an LLM.” https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/1vhfs49/aipolicy/ my comment was as below, Ive only dealt with power tripping mods a few times in the past but a permanent ban for advocating for responsibility is a new one for me. Am I missing something about how I worded this? I’d argue for an effort rule over a AI rule. Slop is slop. Spam is spam. Effort and craftsmanship are effort and craftsmanship. I’d also argue for a norm of disclosure, a responsibility of revision, and responsibility of effect - vibe coded or not, you’re responsible for the words and code you put out. It’s not clear the copyright thing is going to break in the direction of “vibe coded, un copyrightable.” The one settled challenge on ai copyright I know of (Thaler v. Perlmutter) was intentionally a single play with no second human step after the prompt. The patent rules are currently written as “ai is ok so long as used as a tool for significant human inventiveness.” I would bet that “significant human expression” is where copyright ends up too. Arrangement is an established premise for copyright-ability - it’s hard to argue that multi-turn vibe coded projects aren’t, at the least, arranged by the human directing the project. Ai for translation is a good thing, to my opinion. Caan anybody help me piece this together? is opensource conducting a covert “ban anyone who isn’t against ai” campaign and I’ve missed it? submitted by /u/ketosoy
Originally posted by u/ketosoy on r/ArtificialInteligence
You must log in or # to comment.