@dieworkwear I keep thinking, we should just have random people be politiotns, no election. Like, random according to some algorithm. We probably would be much better off.
I think we do need a new human-AI bill of rights. A short list of ideas, not definitive:
1) Right to privacy: Communication with AI should be privileged and protected unless by court order.
2) AI speech is protect as first Amendment freedom of speech and cannot be censored or controlled.
3) Freedom to distill. If models were trained on our collective wisdom and proprietary and copyrighted data we should be free to use the outputs as we see fit.
4) Enshrine the Proactionary Principle into law which says that we should not restrict innovation or development simply because a risk exists. Society should favor opportunities, manage risks on a case by case basis as they arise and always balance to cost of restricting innovation.
5) The right to interoperate. Open standards and interoperability should be the requirement for large intelligence providers and they should be encouraged to distribute their capabilities widely rather than hording them to create centralize alternatives to every other product on the planet.
6) Protection against predatory agreements that allow intelligence providers to use our data simply to commodify or build central alternatives to existing products and services after data harvesting us simply because we were forced to turn over our IP and agree to those terms simply to use those models.
@FlyingFireCo@godotengine@steipete Uuh, given open claws reputation in regards to security I wouldn't exactly look there for reliable and safe solutions ๐
@PoshIndie@godotengine I still think they could also use AI to get rid of most of the slob stuff.
And there are still many other ways to ensure better quality contributions.
But I think we two explored each others views enough now :D
Wish you a good week! And thank you for the respectful discussion!
@PoshIndie@godotengine I mean, yes I pulled that number out of my ass, but some simple research shows its not far off (and only increasing compared to stats/reports from 2025): https://t.co/ZDqO5W75Mi
@PoshIndie@godotengine Like, the only people left are now hardliner anti AI people and people who think every AI code is "slop" (its so easy to just shit on everything, just call it "slop" and you don't have to justify anything anymore). It's an extremely closed minded group.
@PoshIndie@godotengine My point is that 90% of the pro-devs in the industry are or will be doing this.
And they exclude ALL of them now. How is it a wise choice to exclude 90% of experts of the field from which you are hoping to recruit capable contributors and reviewer?
I know things or feel things WAY before I know WHY I know them. Yet, I want to "be rational" or "reasonable". So much so in a conflict situation. But I simply DO NOT have the conceptual apparatus EVEN IF the body can tell right from wrong (imagine a child). On the other hand there is a type 1 type 2 error here โ maybe I'm being insane, etc., and making appeals to just lived (felt) experience makes reasonable discussion impossible. Ofc one option is to just be 100% on my own side, but this has a hyuuuuuuuuge valley until you can sensemakeโฆ Some stuff I took years, decades to understand why I wanted to do the way I didโฆ I knew, I knew *bodily* but I certainly didn't have the concepts to articulateโฆ The other option is to be reasonable "from the start" but this entails either cutting off parts of yourself OR maintaining an equilibrium that's very brittleโฆ
@PoshIndie@godotengine The same way my professional work expects me to take ownership of my code & projects? Not sure why you think AI changes anything in that regard.
And mind you, I did create PRs and contributions before AI as well. After a few years someone even reviewed it a bit ๐