eleijeep

XKCD 2501 is second nature to us internauts so it’s easy to forget that the average person probably only knows XKCD 1053 (Ten Thousand) and XKCD 386 (Duty Calls).

I hadn’t heard of this one before, thanks for posting.

Edit: this website is very strange. The article is dated 5th June 2019 and the other “case studies” are dated to look like they’ve been writing regularly since 2019 up until now. But the article reads like LLM output, and the waybackmachine has no record of this article before December 2025, and no record of the domain name henricodolfing.ch before April 2025. The whois database says that the domain was registered in January 2025. So are they really trying to launder slop by back-dating it to make it look like it was written before LLMs existed? Fuck.

Lots of people who have never used Codeberg and don’t understand the difference between Codeberg and Forgejo are very angry about this.

This is still a problem for OSS licensing, since in order to license a work you need to be the copyright holder.

This might mean that OSS projects find it even more difficult to assert their licenses against violators in court, since they would need to prove that the part of the code that was copied was not AI output.

Banning the output of AI tools in OSS codebases is a sensible move for any project that actually cares about enforcing the license that their code is released under.

I like the idea of bringing back the BBS over SSH but

This codebase was largely built with AI assistance and is set up for that workflow.

- CONTRIBUTING.md

Nah, I’ll stick to IRC.