[−]jonathanstrange · 2026-11-15 Sun 15:56 UTC ·
link
This article makes no sense. None of the arguments are sound and conclusive. First argument: Non sequitur. Programmers were also trained by open source software and from stack overflow and stack exchange. That's not a sound reason for their programs to be open source. Second argument: AI-generated content is not copyrightable. If that's the case, then it cannot be open source since open source licenses rely on copyright for their enforcement. The author confuses public domain with open source. Public domain and open source are two completely different types of categories with different legal implications. Third argument: This contradicts the second argument. Now programmers using AI should publish their code under an open source license or under CC0. That's a demand. Not everybody will do that and no argument is presented why they should do so. Fourth point: Not all code is a hundred percent human written and a hundred percent AI written. The author concludes from this problem that "Code like this, where humans put little effort, except writing prompts, should definitely be Open Source." There is no argument here at all. It's another personal demand without justification.
At least, the author should try to back up their demands with further justifications and make them less contradictory.
I mean, public domain code which is available is certainly open source. Just not the most common kind.
[−]jonathanstrange · 2026-11-15 Sun 16:14 UTC ·
link
You cannot enforce that it's available without copyright and a corresponding license. I thought the author meant the code produced by AI should also be available to others somehow but perhaps I've misunderstood.
At least, the author should try to back up their demands with further justifications and make them less contradictory.