What’s with all the faux accelerationist shit on here the last few days?

Right - I cant imagine there are enough rare metals in those components that would make them more valuable as scrap than as working server grade components

I think it has more to do with their rapid urbanization

Prior to the 1950s, only 10% of China’s population was considered urban. In the same period, the US’s urbanized population was closer to 60%

Yea, I just think theres a segment of liberals who are in denial about what a “Jewish State” actually is.

Either it’s defacto segregation (which happens through social or economic means) and only nominally a Jewish state, or it’s state-enforced segregation that requires apartheid and violence to maintain.

Either way - zionism is racist in its most fundamental aspects and should be snuffed out like chattel slavery and South African apartheid

We are still discussing this matter, but there is currently no point in keeping anarchist.nexus defederated while lemmy.dbzer0.com is federated

This honestly reads like a threat of escalation more than anything else

Just so we’re all clear - the definition of zionism being used in this context is “someone who supports the existence of Israel as a Jewish state”

I’m thinking that it’s quite likely that the .world admin in question would agree with the above sentiment, but would rather not inherit the downstream implications of what it means to define a colonial state by an ethno-religious identity.

Zionists aren’t fit to be the local dogcatcher instance admin.

Obliged.

I haven’t accused you of fitting the label bud, you’ve taken thay upon yourself. The point is still that a particular type of political identity tends to intentionally single out the “bad” billionaires as the problem, while intentionally disregarding the systemic reasons for the existence of those billionaires.

If we don’t agree on what the underlying problem is (let alone agree on what needs to be done about it), then we are absolutely not in alignment. To the extent that we agree on anything, we would still fundamentally disagree on which of those things democrats need to address to win an election.

Crying about leftists making that distinction doesnt do anything to disabuse them of the notion that you’re a bad faith shitlib (notice the third person there) trying to dissuade them of their convictions in favor of what you personally consider “reasonable”

I havent put anyone into a box, i just labled the box and put it on the shelf. It’s not my problem if people decide to climb into it themselves.

Unless you’re upset with my associating liberals with the tendency to ignore the systemic problems of capitalist democracy in favor of directing anger toward just the ‘bad’ capitalists? I think that’s pretty self evident but I’d be happy to argue the merits.

If it looks and walks like a duck, it’s a duck.

One of those things is just a subset of a much larger group, but both are only products of a systemic failure that democrats refuse to acknowledge - which makes them seem inauthentic to most people experiencing the problem.

Libs will pretend that this is not a problem.

One of those things is more true than the other.

This is perfect lib rage-bait.

I’m saving this post and coming back to it later just for the comments

Kinda, but they’re specifically saying the the AI agent cannot itself tag the contribution with the sign-off - like, someone using Claude Code to submit PRs on their behalf. The developer must add the tag themselves, indicating that they at least reviewed and submitted it themselves, and it wasn’t just an agent going off-prompt or some other shit and submitting it without the developer’s knowledge. This is saying ‘the dog ate my homework’ is not a valid excuse.

The developer can use AI, but they must review the code themselves, and the agent can’t “sign-off” on the code for them.

Also - what will holding the submitter responsible even achieve?

What does holding any individual responsible on a development team do? The Linux project is still responsible for anything they put out in the kernel just like any other project, but individual developers can be removed from the contributing team if they break the rules and put it at risk.

The new rule simply makes the expectations clear.

I imagine it has plenty of use cases for blue team as well, just not as many for active threat response.

The risk of that is relatively low for kernel contributions, though. Most of the work being done is porting existing protocols/firmware into the latest Linux kernel, not creating novel features.

The larger risk is instability caused by bad, hallucinated code because it was submitted under the assumption of human authorship. In both cases, further review by the Linux team can be done if they understand where that code is coming from.

Banning AI does nothing, because theres no way of knowing who uses it without proper disclosure, which wouldnt happen if it were banned. To use an example from the article, it would be like banning code written with the use of a specific brand of keyboard.

Better to have it properly disclosed than to make it illicit

That would be true even if they didn’t use AI to reproduce it.

The problem being addressed by the Linux foundation isn’t the use of copyrighted work in developer contribution, it’s the assumption that the code was authored by them at all just because it’s submitted in their name and tagged as verified.

Does that make sense?

1000% YDI.

Even if this were true, it would only mean that the GNU license is unenforceable, not that the Linux kernel itself is infringing copyright

Yup

People want to pretend as if everything that flows downstream from the creation of LLMs is illegal, but that’s just not the reality.