Also says he is charged not convicted which further complicates publishing details I assume.

Just read the next two paragraphs. Don’t just stop because you got to something that you like. The equivalence I draw is clear. You don’t like it, and that’s okay. But one would have to clarify exactly what the ban entails, and that wouldn’t be as clear as you might think. LLM’s only, transformers specifically, what about graph generation, other ML models? Is it just ML? If so, is that because a matrix lattice was used to get from input to output? Could other deterministic math functions trigger the same ban? What is a spell checker used RNG to select best replacement from a list of correct options? What if a compiler introduces an assembled output with an optimization not of the authors writing?

Do you see why they say “The answer will depend on the circumstances, particularly how the AI tool operates and how it was used to create the final work. This is necessarily a case-by-case inquiry”?

And that still affects copywriteability, not license compliance.

As the agency overseeing the copyright registration system, the Office has extensive experience in evaluating works submitted for registration that contain human authorship combined with uncopyrightable material, including material generated by or with the assistance of technology. It begins by asking “whether the ‘work’ is basically one of human authorship, with the computer [or other device] merely being an assisting instrument, or whether the traditional elements of authorship in the work (literary, artistic, or musical expression or elements of selection, arrangement, etc.) were actually conceived and executed not by man but by a machine.” In the case of works containing AI-generated material, the Office will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of “mechanical reproduction” or instead of an author’s “own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form.” The answer will depend on the circumstances, particularly how the AI tool operates and how it was used to create the final work. This is necessarily a case-by-case inquiry. If a work’s traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the “traditional elements of authorship” are determined and executed by the technology—not the human user. Based on the Office’s understanding of the generative AI technologies currently available, users do not exercise ultimate creative control over how such systems interpret prompts and generate material. Instead, these prompts function more like instructions to a commissioned artist—they identify what the prompter wishes to have depicted, but the machine determines how those instructions are implemented in its output. For example, if a user instructs a text-generating technology to “write a poem about copyright law in the style of William Shakespeare,” she can expect the system to generate text that is recognizable as a poem, mentions copyright, and resembles Shakespeare’s style. But the technology will decide the rhyming pattern, the words in each line, and the structure of the text. When an AI technology determines the expressive elements of its output, the generated material is not the product of human authorship. As a result, that material is not protected by copyright and must be disclaimed in a registration application.

In other cases, however, a work containing AI-generated material will also contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim. For example, a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that “the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” Or an artist may modify material originally generated by AI technology to such a degree that the modifications meet the standard for copyright protection. In these cases, copyright will only protect the human-authored aspects of the work, which are “independent of ” and do “not affect” the copyright status of the AI-generated material itself.

This policy does not mean that technological tools cannot be part of the creative process. Authors have long used such tools to create their works or to recast, transform, or adapt their expressive authorship. For example, a visual artist who uses Adobe Photoshop to edit an image remains the author of the modified image, and a musical artist may use effects such as guitar pedals when creating a sound recording. In each case, what matters is the extent to which the human had creative control over the work’s expression and “actually formed” the traditional elements of authorship.

— https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf

What this makes clear is that it certainly isn’t black or white as you say. Nevertheless, automation converting an input to an output, simply cannot be the only mechanism used in determining authorship.

And that wouldn’t change my statement anyway, but rather supports it. The person submitting a patch must be accountable for its contents.

An outright ban would need to carefully define how an input gets converted to an output, and that may not be so clear. To be effectively clear, one would have to potentially end the use of many tools that have been used for many years in the kernel, including snippet generation, spelling and grammar correction, IDE autocompleting. So such a reductive view simply will not suffice.

Additionally, copywritability and licenseability are wholly different questions. And it does not violate GPL to include public domain content, since the license applies to the aggregate work.

I suppose there should be no code generators, assemblers, compilers, linkers, or lsp’s then either? Just etching 1’s and 0’s?

Seems like a reasonable approach. Make people be accountable for the code they submit, no matter the tools used.

They’re common in clouds like Azure, AWS, etc. Life is better with ssh, but sometimes these are useful for bastions.

I think tools like Open Collective, Ko-fi, et al. are sort of that already. So you’d be building centralization atop centralization. That may be useful, but it is another place that would require a rake to keep the lights on, so again less money donated.

And what happens if two or more such services exist? Then you need a layer above that.

Sort of person that says “and a half” after their age.

I’m not saying it is a good value, just that it is one of the features. So just before a flight you can click download on a bunch of videos on your devices. That can be done otherwise, but not quite as simply on mobile devices as one click.

You can also download videos, for offline playback.

Strange to link the words “active genocide” to an article that reads,

Claims of white genocide in South Africa have been entirely discredited

Can I interest you in some links:

My Home Media Project

• mediarr

The *arr Ecosystem

• Servarr Wiki
• TRaSH Guides
• Recyclarr

Media Servers

• Jellyfin
• Jellyseerr (now migrating to seerr)

Infrastructure

• Gluetun (VPN container)
• Tailscale

Public Domain Content

• Internet Archive
• Project Gutenberg
• LibriVox

Sparkling payoffs

Pretty sure wealthy scumbags have been centralizing production and distribution to jack prices for many more years than this ai boom.

IRC still awesome, even in 2026. It’ll be awesome in 2056 too.

Gotta love a Dark Tower reference. Love that series.

Yeah ok but zen is actually pretty good for a free browser.

Pretty sure it dates back to the dawn of commerce.

“After” seems like the wrong preposition in the headline. Feels like “killed in” or “died after” would be less confusing. Anyway, sad for the people involved.

Why would researchers in Antarctica have shotguns? Not like there are polar bears like on Svalbard.