6/1/2026 at 10:34:37 AM
> Yet, this shift made me re-evaluate the open source code publishing. Prior to that, I have been positive about free and open software, and considered this to be the default mode for work such as kefir. I did not require any justifications from myself to publish something. Now, however, I feel more and more that the main beneficiaries of my unpaid work are companies scraping the internet to train large language models. Currently accepted status quo in this area goes against my own intentions in licensing this work under GNU GPLv3. Publication has ceased to be the "null hypothesis" for me, and requires explicit mental justification which I am not able to provide.I feel this pain, one of my small donation driven sites has been destroyed by crawlers who just ignore robots.txt and burn the site into the ground.
Sort of jokingly I proposed an update to the "spam fax" law:
by kator
6/1/2026 at 12:27:06 PM
This is essentially the digital world transforming from a high trust society into a low trust one. Sad to see.by account42
6/1/2026 at 2:47:44 PM
Not even just digital; much of the world is shifting from high trust to low trust as well: https://social.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/...by oooyay
6/2/2026 at 1:21:33 AM
This is kind of crazy. The digital world has never been a "society" except perhaps for the first few years after ARPANET was invented, and it certainly hasn't been a high-trust one for almost as long - we've had spam filters, user account registration required to comment, various authentication methods, moderation, and various things you get in a low-trust environment for decades now. To think otherwise is a bit delusional.by throw10920
6/1/2026 at 6:31:29 PM
There are currently a lot of people in the upper echelons of our society who repeatedly and vigorously abuse the high-trust digital world.We based all of this on gentlemen's agreements and handshakes. That let quite a few people get only very wealthy, instead of hyper-wealthy. Thus those agreements have to be shredded.
AP mentions this in the link:
> Section 227(g)(4). Enforcement. Statutory damages of not less than $500 per server request made in violation of this section, consistent with the per-violation damages established under the original Act for unsolicited facsimile transmissions.
While this is at least something, it's not going to dissuade a startup from doing this sort of thing. They'll find ways to hide the origin of traffic, or just soak up the costs with more VC money.
You need to start throwing people in prison for long periods of time (10+ years) for this sort of thing to stick.
by lenerdenator
6/1/2026 at 2:26:33 PM
To whom would you attribute the greater part of that reduction in trust: the people using FOSS to train LLMs, or the people trying to block them?by Gormo
6/1/2026 at 3:00:01 PM
People who break the social contract are the ones responsible for breaking the social contract, not the ones who take steps in response to social contract being broken.by Xirdus
6/1/2026 at 3:22:48 PM
So the questions here are (a) is any generally accepted social contract actually being broken, and (b) if so, who are the ones who are breaking it?by Gormo
6/1/2026 at 4:35:25 PM
The contract behind open source was something like (GPL):"If you copy my work, you should share your work too."
or at minimum (MIT):
"If you copy my work, you should credit me."
I think it is no longer under dispute that the legal contract is satisfied by LLMs. The AI companies won and will continue to win.
But we are talking about a social contract, which is not quite the same thing. The social contract is what leads some devs who previously enjoyed publishing their work openly to no longer feel the same way. What did the authors mean by "copy"? Did they mean literally CTRL+C, CTRL+V or something broader?
This is a matter of opinion which only each individual creator can answer. For me, copying meant something like:
"To reproduce the function of my work, dependent on my having published it, without effort nor understanding of your own"
Ten years ago this basically required doing a CTRL+C, CTRL+V so there was no need to be more specific. Anybody who did enough work to, say, rewrite in another language (with that language's idioms), met the bar of clause 3. Now AI enables a form of "copying" that matches my definition, without the user even being aware of whose works they are copying. It perfectly launders the origins of its output. It can write an FFmpeg clone in Rust for you that would appear to be a novel work.
Of course, I cannot say that my own little bits and pieces of open source code would make a scratch in AI's capability, were it removed.
But I do strongly believe that if all the code that was published by authors with the same mindset was unavailable, Claude would be a far weaker developer.
by rspeele
6/1/2026 at 4:51:30 PM
> But we are talking about a social contract, which is not quite the same thing. The social contract is what leads some devs who previously enjoyed publishing their work openly to no longer feel the same way.Perhaps this illustrates a fissure that was always lurking under the surface, then. The social contract that I've personally always attributed to FOSS communities was that attempting to restrict how people downstream of you use code is illegitimate, and that licenses like the GPL were meant to use copyright law to achieve something that resembles the state of affairs that might exist if copyright didn't exist in the first place. That's what the whole concept of "copyleft" always seemed to imply.
Now we have a new class of technologies that is admittedly fraught with a wide range of risks and pitfalls, but also a lot of promise to enable people to actually put the "four freedoms" into practice in ways they couldn't before, and we're seeing people who have normative opinions about AI derived from other, unrelated principles trying to circle the wagons and exclude those use cases. That is what seems like a breach of the social contract as I've always understood it.
> Did they mean literally CTRL+C, CTRL+V or something broader?
Given that FOSS licenses were always constructed to function within applicable copyright law, I don't see how they could mean anything else. "Literal CTRL+C, CTRL+V" is the only thing copyright has ever applied to, and the whole point of "copyleft" was to lessen the restrictions on even that.
by Gormo
6/1/2026 at 6:27:27 PM
> "Literal CTRL+C, CTRL+V" is the only thing copyright has ever applied toThis is extremely false. Copyright additionally grants you exclusive control over the production and distribution of derivative works.
A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".
A training set is just an anthology, and the training process is condensation. That makes the weights a derivative work of every work in the training set.
Now, there's a separate discussion to be had about whether that derivative work meets the criteria for fair use, but that's it's own tangent.
by OkayPhysicist
6/1/2026 at 6:41:32 PM
> This is extremely false. Copyright additionally grants you exclusive control over the production and distribution of derivative works.A derivative work is a work that itself includes copyrighted content from the original work.
That is to say that for something to be a derivative work, some measure of its content must be "CTRL-C, CTRL-V" from the originating work.
Something that's merely inspired by another work, or draws underlying themes or factual knowledge from it, is not a derivative work.
> A training set is just an anthology,
Which might make the training set itself a derivative work, but works created by using the model trained on that anthology are a different matter.
> and the training process is condensation.
No, it isn't. It's the creation of a new work that represents patterns extrapolated or interpolated from the data set, without the resulting model actually including any of the copyrighted elements of the work.
The underlying ideas and facts in the original work were never protected by copyright. Only the specific fixed form of expression is copyrightable.
Someone who looks at a dozen code examples in public repos to learn how to do e.g. a quick sort, then upon understanding the logic flow of the quick sort algorithm, writes his own quick sort implementation is not creating a derivative work of the code in the repos he exampled. And the way LLMs work is much more similar to that process than to the "compressed anthology" concept you're describing.
by Gormo
6/1/2026 at 7:07:59 PM
> A derivative work is a work that itself includes copyrighted content from the original work.If you put a GPL C program through Emscripten to run in a browser the output doesn't include the original C code but it's surely a derivative work.
> Someone who looks at a dozen code examples in public repos to learn how to do e.g. a quick sort, then upon understanding the logic flow of the quick sort algorithm, writes his own quick sort implementation is not creating a derivative work of the code in the repos he exampled. And the way LLMs work is much more similar to that process than to the "compressed anthology" concept you're describing.
This is undoubtedly the core of the disagreement. Humans can learn from what they have seen, appreciate it, understand it, and draw on that experience in what they create. They do this without being considered ripoff artists, so why not machines that simulate the "same" thing automatically?
To me the answer is simply that humans are special. Human thought and human effort makes it creativity when a human does it, copying when a machine does it. It's a double standard I am perfectly willing to accept. I am unabashedly biased in this regard.
That may seem remarkably unfair to the machines, or like a cop-out. I just carved out a hardcoded special case for humans, and my whole philosophical reasoning is "because I said so". But how fair do we want to be? After all, if you want to treat a machine exactly like a human who learns from prior art to create new art, then the ownership of the new art would also belong to the machine. Not to the person who prompts it.
by rspeele
6/2/2026 at 2:29:27 AM
Perhaps the future will be less Idiocracy and more Futurama, with humans and robots living socially together.by ranger_danger
6/1/2026 at 5:43:45 PM
> Perhaps this illustrates a fissure that was always lurking under the surface, then(...)Yes, I do think there has always been such a fissure. People publish OSS code for many reasons, often a blend of multiple reasons. There are selfish reasons such as the desire for one's work to be recognized, or even the hope of getting better employment through showing ones' skill or making something companies will pay for support on. There are social reasons like the desire to collaborate with others. There are altruistic benefit-of-all-mankind reasons like Richard Stallman said "...restrictions reduce the amount and the ways that the program can be used. This reduces the amount of wealth that humanity derives from the program."
It sounds like your view of things is limited mostly to that last version of FOSS, the copyleft style. But even adherents of that style, I think, are not too happy with AI consumption of their code. For one, it allows laundering of the copyleft license so their work goes into closed-source products that are never shared. And for two, if your idea of OSS is that we all put our contributions into the great shared river of human achievements to benefit the world, it is disappointing to see that river funneled into a giant waterwheel of profit for a half dozen trillion dollar companies charging rent for its bounty.
> Given that FOSS licenses were always constructed to function within applicable copyright law, I don't see how they could mean anything else.
I agree from a legal standpoint. I cannot enforce my personal definition of copying nor do I expect that to become possible. It was just conveniently aligned with the reality of how copying software worked in the past, and no longer is and never will be again. That doesn't mean I will be writing OSS software with a new made-up unenforceable license. It just means, like OP, I'll weigh differently whether I want to bother releasing stuff at all.
by rspeele
6/1/2026 at 6:57:17 PM
> It sounds like your view of things is limited mostly to that last version of FOSS, the copyleft style.No, I'm well aware of the different motivations for and approaches to FOSS. I'm mostly focusing on the copyleft/GNU GPL side of the discussion here because that's the side of the house where most of ideas of a social contract and desire to see a specific ecosystem develop have been located. People on the MIT/BSD side of things, which has always had a much more direct "do whatever you want" ethos, are not the ones I'd expect to be making these arguments in the first place.
> For one, it allows laundering of the copyleft license so their work goes into closed-source products that are never shared.
I'd agree that someone using an LLM to create a deterministic transcription of someone else's work is indeed violating the license. But I think the argument goes beyond that, into using LLMs in any way at all.
> That doesn't mean I will be writing OSS software with a new made-up unenforceable license. It just means, like OP, I'll weigh differently whether I want to bother releasing stuff at all.
That's a reasonable position, and from the perspective of examining whether the current LLM climate is sapping motivation to participate in FOSS, I can understand where you're coming from.
But to that point, I'd argue that if your motivation was to gain recognition, participate in a community, etc. then you're going to lose those things by keeping your code private anyway, whereas you won't necessarily lose those things just because an LLM was trained on your code. If you contribute to a popular project, people were almost certainly already using your work to do things you don't approve of -- if that didn't take away your motivation, why would LLMs do much worse?
by Gormo
6/1/2026 at 5:38:14 PM
> The social contract that I've personally always attributed to FOSS communities was that attempting to restrict how people downstream of you use code is illegitimate,That's wrong. What on earth gave you that impression when the licenses specifically set constraints on what downstream can do (from "release derivatives as open" to "put me in the credits").
Which part of which open source licenses gave you the impression that there were no restrictions?
by lelanthran
6/1/2026 at 6:58:35 PM
> That's wrong. What on earth gave you that impression when the licenses specifically set constraints on what downstream can do (from "release derivatives as open" to "put me in the credits").These are restrictions on redistribution, not use. And they're there to make sure that derivative works can't themselves impose restrictions on use.
by Gormo
6/1/2026 at 6:08:33 PM
One correction: the point of copyleft was to explot the restrictions in order to ensure that it would be possible for everyone to copy the software.by bonzini
6/1/2026 at 9:50:06 PM
No one consented to training llms, as the op clearly implies, if they had been asked they would have declined to do so. As would all of the many copyright holders who are in the process of suing the model companies.by FuckButtons
6/1/2026 at 3:52:55 PM
Are you asking how AI coding agents, the companies selling them and the individuals using them break the FOSS social contract (copyleft, attribution, upstreaming), or are you disputing that they do?by Xirdus
6/1/2026 at 3:59:23 PM
Both would resolve to the same question, no?There seems to be an implicit premise here that any work generated by an LLM whose training data includes a particular bit of code itself constitutes a redistribution of that code. I've yet to encounter any strong arguments substantiating this premise as a general principle, and my own suspicion is that it is not valid as a general principle, given the nature of how LLMs operate.
It's certainly possible that specific instances of LLMs lazily copy-pasting code from public repos may exist, and the extent to which this is happening is something that can be substantiated by empirical examples, so if you have any to point to, I'd be interested in looking at them. However, where this is happening, it ought to be regarded as a failure modality of LLMs, and not something that implicates the underlying nature of LLMs, given that their intended purpose is to function as stochastic generators that do not merely copy-paste input data.
My initial feeling here is that using open-source code to train LLMs is not per se a violation of the generally accepted FOSS social contract, but rather that attempting to restrict specific use cases of FOSS-licensed code on the basis of normative opinions unrelated to the license terms is a violation, or at least a rejection, of that social contract. I'm not fully committed to this position, though, and would welcome well-reasoned arguments to the contrary.
by Gormo
6/1/2026 at 4:45:30 PM
> Both would resolve to the same question, no?Yes but my answer would be different. It can be either about what coding agents do (and you'll see that it breaks the social contract), or it can be about what the FOSS social contract is (and you'll argue that coding agents don't break it.) Lo and behold, it was the latter.
> There seems to be an implicit premise here that any work generated by an LLM whose training data includes a particular bit of code itself constitutes a redistribution of that code.
Not any work. But if a specific work was generated based on a specific open source work, then according to the social contract that binds non-AI code generators such as transpilers, the output is derivative and should follow the license of that open source work.
There's also the question of whether the model itself is a redistribution. For every other lossy compression algorithm in history, the answer is a resounding yes. Is a model meaningfully different from a hypercompressed corpus of its learning data?
The social contract of the open source (not to be confused with the legal contract of GPL, MIT etc.) is that developers give users software that they can use and modify in any way they want, and in exchange the users give the developer recognition and help with development and maintance, as well as give each other the assurance that the software will remain available to them and any future users.
AI gives the user all the benefits of using open source software with none of the obligations that come from using open source software. Developer gains nothing from going open source. It makes no sense for any developer to go open source. Social comtract breaks down, and it's all because AI users didn't hold up their half of the bargain.
by Xirdus
6/1/2026 at 5:25:00 PM
> But if a specific work was generated based on a specific open source work, then according to the social contract that binds non-AI code generators such as transpilers, the output is derivative and should follow the license of that open source work.I don't disagree with the premise that any LLM that is cloning code wholesale from a third-party repo is creating a derivative work, and the license terms apply to it.
But I also don't agree that non-AI code generators such as transpilers are in the same category as LLMs -- a deterministic process that is simply parsing input from a single source and outputting it in a new form is not the same thing as a stochastic process that interpolates patterns from multiple sources and then uses those patterns to generate novel outputs.
> There's also the question of whether the model itself is a redistribution. For every other lossy compression algorithm in history, the answer is a resounding yes. Is a model meaningfully different from a hypercompressed corpus of its learning data?
The model isn't a lossy compression archive that merely represents a collection of pre-existing works in parallel to each other. It's a probability matrix that relates together uniquely isolatable units of data to each other across the entire collection.
If I build a Markov chain based on a statistical analysis of word sequences in Hamlet, and then use it to produce a new sentence that isn't found in the text of that work, I have not created a derivative work of Hamlet under any applicable sense of that term.
> The social contract of the open source (not to be confused with the legal contract of GPL, MIT etc.) is that developers give users software that they can use and modify in any way they want, and in exchange the users give the developer recognition and help with development and maintance, as well as give each other the assurance that the software will remain available to them and any future users.
I don't think that is generally true. There's always been a hope and expectation that some subset of users would contribute back to the project in the ways you're describing, but never a sense of there being any obligation to do so. Only a fraction of FOSS users have ever contributed to back to the projects whose software they use.
There's always been both a social and legal obligation to properly attribute authors and abide by license terms when redistributing or forking FOSS code, but neither obligation has ever applied when learning programming techniques from FOSS code in order to write your own software. And the way LLMs are designed to work is more similar to the latter than to the former.
But in cases where LLMs actually are acting in ways similar to the former, I agree that they should be held accountable both socially and legally.
by Gormo
6/1/2026 at 7:04:48 PM
>If I build a Markov chain based on a statistical analysis of word sequences in Hamlet, and then use it to produce a new sentence that isn't found in the text of that work, I have not created a derivative work of Hamlet under any applicable sense of that term.If you write "To see or not to see, that is the question" about a person named Eyelet, who is going blind, how can you argue that it is NOT derivative of / borrowed from Hamlet? Yet that sentence is not in the work. Isn't that what LLMs essentially do? Tokenize, then substitute in new values for certain tokens, while retaining the general structure?
by hn_acc1
6/1/2026 at 6:39:58 PM
> If I build a Markov chain based on a statistical analysis of word sequences in Hamlet, and then use it to produce a new sentence that isn't found in the text of that work, I have not created a derivative work of Hamlet under any applicable sense of that term.Uh, that is exactly what a derivative work is. You literally specify that Hamlet is an input to your work. I believe you're conflating derivative with transformative. You're certainly creating a transformative derivation of Hamlet, but you are by definition creating a derivative work by training a Markov chain on the text of Hamlet.
The obvious follow up here is whether an LLM is creating transformative derivations or not. A lot of folks argue that yes, an LLM spitting out statistically sampled code that matches existing code is not transformative and is (or might be) infringing the terms of the license it was released under. Others argue that there's not an exact copy of the original source in the LLM's weights so by definition it must be a transformative work. I think it's a pretty obvious "somewhere in the middle" that is gonna make a bunch of lawyers a whole lot of money.
Personally, I don't care one way or the other. I'm one of the folks that thinks software shouldn't be copyright-able in the first place.
by davisp
6/1/2026 at 7:08:16 PM
> Uh, that is exactly what a derivative work is.No, it isn't. A derivative work isn't something based on extracting underlying ideas or patterns from another work, it's something that includes copyrighted portions of the other work.
An annotated edition of Hamlet is a derivative work. A Cliff's Notes summary of Hamlet is a derivative work.
Strange Brew and The Lion King are not derivative works of Hamlet simply because they include literary themes and plot points that originated in Hamlet. A list of word counts of popular works of literature that includes an entry for Hamlet is also not a derivative work. The Markov chain described above is not a derivative work.
> The obvious follow up here is whether an LLM is creating transformative derivations or not. A lot of folks argue that yes, an LLM spitting out statistically sampled code that matches existing code is not transformative and is (or might be) infringing the terms of the license it was released under.
And I would agree with them. An LLM that actually is outputting non-trivial code that matches a public project's code verbatim is engaging in copying, and not stochastic inference.
> I think it's a pretty obvious "somewhere in the middle" that is gonna make a bunch of lawyers a whole lot of money.
It's a shame that the same fundamental questions have to be relitigated over and over again just because the contextual formalities and modes of expression have changed. I wonder how many of the legal cases are going to be copies or derivative works of previous ones.
by Gormo
6/1/2026 at 6:11:29 PM
Yes, and obviously: bots crushing servers in strict contravention of the robots.txt rules.by boothby
6/1/2026 at 3:20:14 PM
“No, no, what was she wearing?”by dlev_pika
6/1/2026 at 3:47:22 PM
People who take steps in response to social contract being broken are the ones responsible for the steps they've taken, not the ones who break the social contract.by Xirdus
6/1/2026 at 3:13:25 PM
Its definitely the ones DDOSing websites while giving no attribution in any way to the original creators.by hilariously
6/1/2026 at 3:42:08 PM
DDOSing websites seems to be an unrelated problem, and one that has traditionally been solved through response throttling and IP blocking.Attribution is often required even on MIT or BSD licenses where code is being redistributed, either in original or modified versions, but that would relate to this discussion only to the extent that one regards using LLMs whose training data included a certain bit of code as itself constituting redistribution of that specific code -- but that in turn is a very debatable premise which really ought to be argued for, and not merely argued upon as though it is already generally recognized as true.
by Gormo
6/1/2026 at 3:51:00 PM
Why? You stole my stuff and now are pretending I need to argue for you to stop stealing it. It's a joke.by hilariously
6/1/2026 at 5:34:27 PM
This is the very question under debate. Training LLMs on publicly available data is a novel situation, and neither law nor social opinion have settled a consensus on the subject.Copyright maximalists like to borrow unearned moral weight for their position by conflating copyright infringement with "stealing", but this is not actually true in any legal sense. It's not clear that training an AI on publicly available data should even constitute copyright infringement, much less "stealing".
by marssaxman
6/1/2026 at 4:09:40 PM
What? What is being "stolen" from you?Are you now layering the old and tired "copyright infringement = stealing" argument on top of the still unsubstantiated premise that all LLM training is copyright infringement?
by Gormo
6/1/2026 at 11:32:33 AM
Really hate to say it, but I’ve stopped publishing my work too for this reason. I spend most of my time now building my own little software ark, and I aspire to no longer think of programming in the next few years. I feel like the creative economy in general will be unrecognizable in the near future, maybe nonexistent. I wonder what modes of collaboration on ideas might form in the next few years.by malwrar
6/1/2026 at 11:52:29 AM
Here is what the purveyors of AI don't seem to realise. You can bend copyright law all you want in order to train your models on whatever you can grab, but in the absence of genuine protection of their creative work authors are simply not going to be publishing at all.by irdc
6/1/2026 at 2:31:00 PM
I think they see it all too well. They still think they can make bank today while it lasts, whatever comes after is some other shareholder's problem. And if we're talking about open source, killing it might be a positive side effect, they'll be ready to sell you a closed source alternative when you no longer have options.by buran77
6/1/2026 at 4:04:02 PM
I don't think we're going back to closed source. I think we're going back to guilds. Aka. closed knowledge.by irdc
6/1/2026 at 3:00:28 PM
Furthermore, if people not only stop publishing, but also take down already published works, it will create a moat around already existing Language ModelsAnd the more they DDOS small websites — instead of respectfully scraping once — the more realistic my conspiracy theory looks.
by lesostep
6/1/2026 at 2:13:27 PM
People who are making stuff because they want to share it are still going to be publishing. And fighting to be noticed in an unending torrent of slop.by egypturnash
6/1/2026 at 2:21:00 PM
Without any material or immaterial benefits? And with one's work being ground up and turned into weights for the next version of the machine that's threatening one's employment?by irdc
6/1/2026 at 5:41:28 PM
> People who are making stuff because they want to share it are still going to be publishing.Those people who do that are too few and far between to make a difference. The majority of open source devs aren't giving away the source without a license. That license is how they specify what they want in return.
by lelanthran
6/1/2026 at 5:48:43 PM
> The majority of open source devs aren't giving away the source without a license.100% of open source devs aren’t giving away the source without a license, since a licence—the grant of permissions for what is otherwise exclusive to author under the law—is what makes something open source.
> That license is how they specify what they want in return.
No, the license is how they legally give away permission to use material that is legally subjejct to their exclusive rights by virtue of creation. The license may be a contract license that, as you suggest, involves mutual exchange of value, but for many (especially permissive) open source licenses it is a gratuitous bounded grant of permission which has limits but does not involve giving something of value back to the creator.
by dragonwriter
6/1/2026 at 6:28:02 PM
> No, the license is how they legally give away permission to use material that is legally subjejct to their exclusive rights by virtue of creation. The license may be a contract license that, as you suggest, involves mutual exchange of value, but for many (especially permissive) open source licenses it is a gratuitous bounded grant of permission which has limits but does not involve giving something of value back to the creator.Wrong. What they want in return is either credit or derivatives of the software. It's disingenuous to suggest that all these authors specifying, in a legal document, the exact mechanism by which to pay them back don't know what they are asking.
If you're not happy with that trade, then don't make it.
by lelanthran
6/1/2026 at 12:41:57 PM
Great. More work for AI then.by dzhiurgis
6/1/2026 at 2:19:17 PM
The sad thing is I feel trapped on all sides of the debate, I wrote a book about LLMs and human creativity (spoiler Humans win for a long time) but I was going to do it as a blog series, instead I published https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GXCSY4W8 because I felt at least I might get a bit back for literally 100’s of hours of my life I poured into the book and my editor and friends who read and provided reviews.And I push a lot of open source code including a ton for the SWGEmu project, but now I’m of mixed mind to stop pushing anything public. I can’t decide, am I talking out of both sides of my mouth, it’s a confusing time to navigate for sure.
by kator
6/1/2026 at 4:11:58 PM
Indeed sad, congrats on publishing your book though. I’ve certainly felt a bit of that same angst myself.I think SWGEmu (cool project, just learned of it from you!) do represent some optimism though. Maybe these sorts of passion projects will take over the space?
by malwrar
6/1/2026 at 5:40:05 PM
> Really hate to say it, but I’ve stopped publishing my work too for this reason.Me too; not that I've published a lot, but definitely more than most. That won't be happening anymore.
by lelanthran
6/1/2026 at 11:09:08 AM
> The sender pays, not the receiver.You have a hole here. Your web server is sending the response and the bot is receiving.
Fix that and … profit? :-)
by jagged-chisel
6/1/2026 at 2:20:24 PM
oh good point got that backwards… OMG my fax brain didn’t even think about it.by kator
6/1/2026 at 1:13:23 PM
I'm trying to compose a better wording, but my attempts aren't working. The best I've got is:> The initiator of the communication pays, not the server operator.
by wizzwizz4
6/1/2026 at 7:54:30 PM
Incredibly rich to complain about LLM scraping with LLM generated article.by garaetjjte