[–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (1 child)

The tragedy of the commons doesn't apply directly to software like that. If you have GPL code and people use it according to the license and you don't get paid, that's not the tragedy of the commons. GPL code is a donation. That is the expected outcome. You are free to choose whatever license, like FUTO has, for instance, a weird mix of source available, open source, and proprietary.

Tragedy of the commons, in open source, would be someone modifying your code and distributing it on a closed source license. They took from the commons, without returning anything. But you have to take developer expectations into account. If someone does not expect this to happen and chooses the MIT license, well, they're being naïve at best. But you could say the tragedy is in effect. If they are happy with that happening (as the case of Tannenbaum and Intel), then no tragedy happening.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    The point is a tool is something you wield. Your skill is needed for and improved by the use of a tool. An LLM is an automation. You don't wield it, you give directives. Your skill is unnecessary for its use and is left untrained. The worst part is that, unlike a good, deterministic automation (like cruise control), where you understand the limitations and can take over to avoid them, you can't do that with LLMs. The best you can do is carefully review the slop output.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • view more: ‹ prev next ›