I think the premise is a little shaky since a good servant leader is already transparent. But there's some good takeaways. Leaders should inform their team of what's happening behind the scenes and allow them to understand why things are playing out the way they are. Allowing people to take on more responsibility, if they want it, is a healthy sign of an organization, but it shouldn't be imposed nor expected if they already have enough on their plates.

> I’m still trying to figure out what kinds of open source are worth writing in this new era

Is there any upside to opensourcing anything anymore? Anything published today becomes training data for the next model, with no attribution to the original work.

If the goal is to experiment, share ideas, or let others learn from the work, maybe the better default now is "source available", instead of FOSS in the classic sense. It gives people visibility while setting clearer boundaries on how the work can be used.

I learned most of what I know thanks to FOSS projects so I'm still on the fence on this.

I keep seeing this attitude and I don't really understand it at all; there's no upside to publishing open source work because it might be utilized by more people, is that correct?

Or is it the attribution? There are many many libraries I have used and continue to use and I don't know the author's internet handle or Christian name. Does that matter? Why?

I have written a lot of code that my name is no longer attached to. I don't care and I don't know why anyone does. If it were valuable I would have made more money off of it in the first place, and I don't have the ego to just care that people know it's my code either.

I want the things I do today to have an upside for people in the future. If that means I write code that gets incorporated into a model that people use to build things N number of years from now, that's great. That's awesome. Why the hell is that apparently so demotivating to some people?

> there's no upside to publishing open source work because it might be utilized by more people, is that correct?

I believe the perspective here is "I make code for fellow hackers to look into, critique, be educated on, or simply play with". If you see the hacker scene as a social one, LLM's are an awful black hole that sucks up everything around it and ruins this collaboration.

Not to mention that the hacker scene was traditionally thought to be a rejection of what we now call "Big Tech". Corporate was free to grab the code, but it didn't matter much as long as the scene was kept. Now even that invisible social contract is broken.

But I suppose if you're of a diehard FOSS mentality, "Free" means "Free". Free to be used to build, or destroy society at its whim. a hivemind to meld into and progress the overall understanding of science, for science's sake.

I'll admit the last few years have had me questioning what I truly want to do within the on these two mentalities.

> I want the things I do today to have an upside for people in the future.

I think most would agree with this, but the way things work today don't support it. As of now, AI gains are privatized while the losses are socialized. Until that one-sided imbalance is addressed, LLM's "use" of open source is unbounded and nonreciprocal.

Attribution is a big part of the human experience. Your response frames it as ego driven, but it's also what motivates people to maintain code that is not usually compensated, it's also what builds reputation, trust, communities, and even careers.

Until that’s figured out, we can still share, but maybe in ways that are closer to one another, or under distribution models that reflect the reality we’re in rather than the one we used to have.

People were publishing "open source" not because they gave a shit, but to pad their resumes to get hired at FAANG - like they're paid by the number of projects published on Github It was always human slop. I'm glad this practice is dying. Soon we might be able to reinstate the assumption that the remaining open source projects contain interesting ideas that are worth your eyeball time to look at.

Sorry but source-available is probably going to get slurped up for training data as well

Microsoft already did this for all code in every public repo.

When are they going to start doing it for private repos too...

I wuldn't discount it already happening. They do own the most popular code hosing repository, after all.

This is kinda how I've felt for months. I don't have any interest in continuing existing open source projects and don't want to create any new ones.

What's the point?

All of my personal projects for the past few months have been entirely private, I don't even host them on Github anymore, I have a private Forgejo instance I use instead.

I also don't trust any new open source project I stumble upon anymore unless I know it was started at least a year ago.

You're not obligated to give away your mind for free. You're free to share, of course. But sharing implies reciprocity, a back and forth. The internet used to be like that, but if the environment changes, you adapt your behavior accordingly.

In the long run I think it's time to starve the system from input until it's attitude reverts to reciprocal. It's not what I'd want, but it seems necessary. People learn from consequences, not from words alone

Or use AGPL licenses. As a bonus, nobody in JavaScript checks licenses so you might be able to sue Amazon for money.

Staying true to free software principles. It's unethical to publish nonfree code or binaries.

Code is only useful if it's used. I could write a ton of code and be buried with it, or publish it for people (or AI software, or dolphins or aliens) to use. Who has the energy to have Anubis measure whether my code, or yours, is ethical enough? I'm going to die someday!

> It gives people visibility while setting clearer boundaries on how the work can be used.

... Because those would be respected?

At least Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller had a rivalry to see who had better public works.

This goes to where our wealthiest people no longer invest in our society. We used to use a progressive tax system as the means of helping this process along, but I dont think anyone can argue that this has since been subverted.

This reminded me of the other extreme to health consciousness: the 109 year old that smoked cigars and ate ice cream every night [0].

[0] https://youtu.be/BXyfCGDnuWs?t=332

Maybe it's just me, but reading through LLM generated prose becomes a drag very quickly. The em dashes sprinkled everywhere, the "it's not this, it's that" style of writing. I even tried listening to it and it's still exhausting. Maybe it's the ubiquity of it nowadays that is making me jaded, but I tend to appreciate terrible writing, like I'm doing in this comment, more nowadays.

I find the Grokipedia writing especially a drag. I don't think it's em dashes and similar so much as the ideas not being clear. In good writing the writer normally has a clear idea in mind and is communicating it but the Grokipedia writing is kind of a waffley mess. I guess maybe because LLMs don't have much of an idea in mind so much as stringing words together.

It’s right there in the seconds paragraph of the article:

> My Grokipedia entry has over seven thousand words, compared to a mere 1,300 in my Wikipedia article

> I tend to appreciate terrible writing, like I'm doing in this comment, more nowadays.

Nah dude, what you're describing from LLMs is terrible writing. Just because it has good grammar and punctuation doesn't make it good, for exactly the reasons you listed. Good writing pulls you through.

I completely agree. There's an "obsequious verbosity" to these things, like they're trying to convince you they they're not bullshitting. But that seems like a tuning issue (you can obviously get an LLM to emit prose in any style you want), and my guess is that this result has been extensively A/B tested to be more comforting or something.

One of the skills of working with the form, which I'm still developing, is the ability to frame follow-on questions in a specific enough way to prevent the BS engine from engaging. Sometimes I find myself asking it questions using jargon I 100% know is wrong just because the answer will tell me what the phrasing it wants to hear is.

I'm fine with Gemini's tone as I'm reading for information and argumentation, and Gemini's prose is quite clear. I prefer its style and tone over OpenAI's which seems more inclined to punchy soundbites. I don't use Claude enough for general purpose information to have an opinion on it.

Yeah, I find it extremely grating. I’m kind of surprised that people are willing to put up with it.

On MacOS it warns you when you're about to open an app you've downloaded and installed yourself. "Foo has been downloaded from the internet, are you sure you want to open it?". It doesn't stop you from installing it. Why should doing so on your phone be any different?

Depending on your app this is not all.

If i send a golang binary to someone with a mac via signal or other mediums, apple simply displays a dialog that the app is damaged and can't be run.

You need to use chmod to manually remove the quarantine flag to run it.

That for me is something that should be fined ad infinitum, because it is clearly designed to disallow non technical people to run custom apps.

On the other hand, it used to be very common for malware on Windows to email itself to all your contacts using your real email client. It's probably reasonable for an OS to add a little friction to the process in the modern era, though it probably shouldn't lie and claim the binary is damaged when that's not the problem.

chmod to dequarantine doesn't sound like "a little friction" to me.

On your point about security, this kind of aggressivity from the platform owner tend to backfire.

The user was already convinced to open that mail, download that file, and try to run it. Pushing the process to the terminal just means your clueless users now run the provided incantations in the shell instead, and the attack vector now becomes huge (the initial program doesn't even need to be malware)

I agree having to go to the command line is too much friction. Just clicking `overdue-invoice.doc.pif` is too little. About right is somewhere between a prompt and setting the file executable in the GUI.

I wish it would run in a stricter sandboxed mode and prompt the user on the first network requests and file writes outside of it's directory.

That wouldn't be perfect, but at least the user could be prompted for a concrete action instead of a vague "this script is scary" warning.

> If i send a golang binary to someone with a mac via signal or other mediums, apple simply displays a dialog that the app is damaged and can't be run.

Has this changed? I thought it failed to launch, but if you go to Privacy & Security in Settings it would give you the option to allow it to run?

Though yes, macOS doesn't prompt you to do that, you have to know where to find it.

I believe they are saying that this update will remove the ability to decide if you want to install it and will require developers to register and pay for their applications to be installable at all. It's been several years since I developed for Mac, but they operated a similar way, secretly marking a file as quarantined and saying "XYZ Is Damaged and Can’t Be Opened. You Should Move It To The Trash" if you didn't pay to play. Maybe this has since changed, or maybe I'm just a dummy. Regardless, whether a platform has any business funneling a user into their walled garden is another philosophical argument altogether.

Quarantine is for any executable downloaded from the Internet. It doesn't prevent it from being opened, it only marks it to be checked for malware.

In my experience the quarantine flag gets added if the file is downloaded via browser, chat program, email, or some other way that isn’t curl/wget/other CLI tool. At least for the past 6-8 months this has been my experience. Not that it excuses anything, but for what I have had to deal with it’s been somewhat helpful.

It definitely adds hurdles to running it.

Usually the hurdle is just a pop-up informing you that it's been downloaded from the Internet. Sometimes the malware checks go wrong though and try to prevent you from opening it at all.

I sure hope they still allow `xattr -r -d com.apple.quarantine /Applications/*`

This is the key and only difference. Scanning is great, and security is great.

but macOS lets you override any system determination, iOS does not, and Google is proposing the iOS flavor.

macOS warns you literally about every downloaded app not from MAS (signed!), unless you build it yourself or remove quarantine manually.

I think it is mostly about expectations, macOS trained people that it is relatively safe to install signed apps. If your app is unsigned, Gatekeeper will refuse to run it.

Do they have to be from the App Store, or "just" notarized?

Notarized works just fine.

it also sometimes says `"Foo" Not Opened` `"Apple could not verify “Foo” is free of malware that may harm your Mac or compromise your privacy."` This is frankly pretty insulting to the intelligence of the user and /does/ stop them. I think the paradigm is flowing towards "less" rather than "more"

If you install the binary directly, but obviously it does not ask when you are installing through a store like brew...

Have to admit, this crossed my mind back in the 2000s, what if we sell widgets as a service, lol. Hilarious.

The amount of effort and polish that goes into Asahi is commendable. I installed it on an M1 MBP and the process was seamless, from the initial curl, to it handling the disk partitions. It was a work of art. Fighting to install native linux on apple silicon is an uphill battle though.

Comes to prove that a great UI/UX can work wonders for users. This is what Alfred back in the day was dabbling with, except that Sky seems to have a modern natural language spin to it.

The main reason is to save time and having an anchoring point to further develop ideas.