On Sat, 1 Nov 2025 at 22:33, Tim Bray <[email protected]> wrote: > On Nov 1, 2025 at 7:24:18 AM, Charles Haynes via Silklist < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> This is fascinating to me. It's clear that the intent is to treat AI as >> adversarial and to try to hinder it. What's not as clear to me is why. >> > > Because there is a massive backlash against GenAI among quite a wide range > of people. A few reasons: > > > - ... > > Now, I am perfectly aware that there are counter-arguments for everything > in that list, and I am not an enemy of the technology as such, but I am > among those counseling caution, both financial and technical, in leaping > aboard the train. And a lot of the people in the ranks of promoters are > people who were promoting NFTs just a few years ago and I want nothing to > do with them. > > I don’t think the license that started the discussion is terribly > practical. But the sentiment it expresses is widely-held and not entirely > unfounded. >
Certainly I agree there's a lot of anti-AI sentiment, in which case the rationale would be "AI is bad, mmmkay?" As for those other points, they're certainly valid but the license isn't what I'd call "fit for purpose." It doesn't address any of those points. I mean it's fine if that license is simply a reaction to AI, but I was wondering if there was anything else to it or if it was simply copying the form of the GPL without a coherent rationale. — Charles
-- Silklist mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.panix.com/listinfo.cgi/silklist
