4,431 karma · joined May 23, 2021
Blocking AI from generating sexualized images because people could publish deepfakes is no different than banning alcohol because of drunk driving.
Tools are neutral. Blame the people who misuse the tools and hurt others.
The commit message says "initial sync from the monorepo." Is this even compilable without the rest of the source code?
This practice is entirely compatible with the PostgreSQL License, but it is often prohibited by GPL variants. You typically cannot combine GPL code with code under most other copyleft licenses, such as the Eclipse Public License.
Regarding copyright status, AI-assisted work is increasingly recognized as copyrightable in many jurisdictions, provided the process involves a sufficient level of human creative input (though the specific threshold varies by jurisdiction). Only work generated purely by AI, with no human involvement, is arguably public domain. In a case like this, which is akin to "pair programming," the output is almost certainly copyrightable.
Comprehend it this way: You create a blank (A)GPL project and incorporate the upstream BSD codebase into it. While those original upstream files remain under their original permissive license, the project as a whole is governed by the (A)GPL (plus the attribution requirements of the upstream license, which the GPL permits). From there, you can add your own code under the AGPL and distribute the combined work under the AGPL.
If someone takes your code and uses only your portion, they can use it under the AGPL alone. However, if they also include the upstream source code, then the attribution requirements of the upstream license must still be met.
It is not open source unfortunately.
I have had a lot of experience creating and editing PowerPoint slides with Claude recently. It always converts the file to a PDF using LibreOffice and then renders the PDF into images to see if everything went right and that no text has overflowed.
UI/UX is costly, and most FOSS projects cannot get it right without massive investments from enterprises (e.g., Red Hat's UX designers heavily contributed to GNOME) or startups (e.g., Zed, Element, Bluesky).
Projects without that backing are mostly unusable, at least from a Gen Z perspective.
It is essentially a black box with full user permissions, meaning you are just handing over your entire system to a Chinese-owned server. With OpenCode and its GLM provider, at least I can monitor which files were read, which were edited, and what commands were executed.
Not to mention that Chinese national security laws legally obligate companies to cooperate with state intelligence and counter-espionage efforts [0]. If you have this installed on a corporate workstation, and your company is large enough, the possibility of them spying on you is not just a risk—it's almost a certainty.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Intelligence_Law_of_t...
It is essentially a black box with full user permissions, meaning you are just handing over your entire system to a Chinese-owned server. With OpenCode and its GLM provider, at least I can monitor which files were read, which were edited, and what commands were executed.
Not to mention that Chinese national security laws legally obligate companies to cooperate with state intelligence and counter-espionage efforts [0]. If you have this installed on a corporate workstation, and your company is large enough, the possibility of them spying on you is not just a risk—it's almost a certainty.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Intelligence_Law_of_t...
I bet most American companies would choose Fable over GPT-5.5. Employee salaries cost far more than token costs. Getting the job done right is much more important.
Another language I'm excited about is Carbon. I can't wait for an MVP to actually try it. We have so many new languages incubating in the last few years!
A different way to frame this would be that those bugs would never be surfaced or exploited if the software were proprietary.
If Fable were released as open-weights, I doubt anyone would ever consider using GLM or any other models over it.
I think the trend will be running open-weight models with the provider of your choice. You can always switch providers, avoiding vendor lock-in, with the trade-off of privacy concerns. You have to trust that the provider actually behaves the way they claim.
As long as the book was a legal copy, that is allowed legally.
By the way, I don't really see the value here. Most of this could be vibe-coded and reimplemented in a day or two. It’s just an integration of existing NPM libraries.
Claude never provides the raw reasoning chain. What you see is just a summary of that reasoning. Getting the full thinking output requires an enterprise agreement.
https://patrickmccanna.net/the-text-in-claude-codes-extended...