Also, a ban without control isn’t a ban. And making sure that not a single line of code was writen with the help of some AI seems more than complicated… is it just possible?
And how much working time would it take to audit all packages to make sure it is 100% wrote by some human?
It seems more realistic (and more honnest) to allow the part that would not be found by a reasonable audit of the code.
Companies use windows at work, because it was used in school. Rather than adapt employees to Linux, better pay for windows (many go for very old and dangerous versions to spare money, and that threaten economy, but it is cheaper).
If workers know Linux, companies would make them work on Linux, rather than pay windows and adapt workers to windows.
As long as Linux is more likely to prevent massive hacks of companies’datas, the gouvernment should push for Linux at school in order to push companies toward their own safety…
Prohibiting AI training would not work, in my opinion… but trying to prevent the privatization of AI production could be interesting, isn’t it?
Would it be possible (legally) to make a new version of GPL stating that code generated by AI trained on the GPL copy lefted code would have to respect the GPL as well?
I don’t really understand how dumb it is to set a wide default type casting. Yet I understand the point of requesting declared casting for some language (when the language is designed to be used by a team of professional dev).
But for languages that aim to be accessible to simple users for personal home pages, with html and css, is it really dumb? May it let mistakes pass without crash the remaining of the script, but it seems acceptable to me in some amateur pages.
If the script is written by a single dev, or a small team, they may decide to only use explicit casting and strict rules for their code…
I think the main mistake is to take javascript for an “easy little language one may use without learn it” just because it is made to be usable by non-professionals. But I could be wrong, and I would gladly understand how wrong I am…
Because it makes more sense than NaN which would be the other possible solution.
Number + Text = Text, and the Number is interpreted as the character that compose it in a human reading rather than based on the char matching ASCI or some other table.
The attempt to convert text into numbers to make the operation would give NaN most of the time (Not a Number)… Or should we get the asci value of “1” and get 1+“1” = 50?
I think 1+“1”=11 is a good default, as you see clearly what happend and how to correct it if it is not the result expected…
Marathons should be ran in bronze made armor!
I think javscrpit caste the strings “0” and “false” to true, yes…
Simple javscript casting, if the string contains at least one char, it means yes ; else it means no.
May you could try to find people who like the things you like?
I agree with you, and from my understanding (which could be inaccurate) the position of debian is to avoid a part of the use of that technology they judge both wrong and avoidable.
My own nasty use of AI is mostly to find back the name or syntaxe of functions I seldom use, and sometimes to explain me some theorical points. I admit it is wrong and only spares me only a few hours a week at most compared to stack overflow and online tutorials.
And my laziness would probably make me accept the existance of one model that would be a public property democraticaly controled ; which would consume less ressources than having many concurrents, and avoid the profit-oriented and corporate mindsets (I imagine them being the main source of threat)…