Which is why the repo says "Written in Rust" but contains only a thin JavaScript/TypeScript layer around the underlying service.

1. Only be allowed via CI/CD

2. All infra should be defined as code

3. Any deployment to production should be a delayed process that also has a human-approval step in the workflow (at least one, if not more)

(Exactly where that review step is placed depends on your organisation - culture, size, etc.)

And anyone that does need to touch production should do so from an isolated VM with temporary credentials. Developers shouldn't routinely have production access from their terminal. This last aspect is easy and cheap to set up on AWS. I presume it's also possible in Google Cloud.

Most people run into problems (with or without AI) when they write code without knowing what they're trying to create. Sometimes that's useful and fun and even necessary, to explore a problem space or toy with ideas. But eventually you have to settle on a design and implement it - or just end up with an unmaintainable mess of code (whether it's pure-human or AI-assisted mess doesn't matter lol).

You are then bringing a whole host of other issues that are related in nature but not in practice: * Locking down of Android ecosystem * Openness of education * Remote teaching * Remote or online examination etc.

Professional bodies don't wall off the ability to learn nor to tinker at home, nor even to prototype or experiment (depending on scale and industry).

You can't confuse all these issues into one thing and say "we don't want this". It's a disingenuous way to argue the matter.

Typically arguments come up:

“that’s gatekeeping” - yes, for good reason!

“Laws already exist” - yeah, and that’s not the same as professional accreditation, standards and codes of practice! Different thing, different purpose. Also the laws are a mishmash and not fit for purpose in most sectors.

High profile convictions are not a good way of dealing with this. Not in the short or long term. Sure they have an impact, and laws should be enforced, but that’s not a substitute for managing the industry properly.

In most of those professions, it is a crime or a civil violation to offer services without the proper qualifications, experience and accreditation from one of the appropriate professional bodies.

We DO NOT have this in software engineering. At all. Anyone can teach themselves a bit of coding and start using it in their professional life.

Analogous to law, you can draft a contract by yourself, but if it goes wrong you have a major headache. You cannot, however, offer services as a solicitor without proper qualifications and accreditation (at least in the UK). Yet in software engineering, not only can we teach ourselves and then write small bits of software for ourselves, we can then offer professional services with no further barriers or steps.

The mishmash of laws we have around data and privacy are not professional standards, nor are they accreditation. We don’t have the framework or laws around this. And I am not aware of the USA (federal level) or Europe (or member states) or China or Russia or India or etc having this.

For example, the BCS in the UK is so weak that although it exists, exceedingly few professional software engineers are even registered with them. They have no teeth. There’s no laws covering any of this stuff. Just good-ol’ GDPR and some sector-specific laws here and there trying to keep people mildly safe.

AI is a tool. It’s not intelligent, and it works at a much bigger scale than bricks and mortar, but it’s still just a tool. There’s lots we can blame AI companies for, but abuse of the tool isn’t a clear-cut situation. We should blame them for misleading marketing. But we should also blame users (who are often highly intelligent - eg doctors) for using it outside their ability. Much like doctors are fed up of patients using AI to try to act like doctors, software engineers are now finding out what it’s like when clients try to use AI to act like software engineers.

Gone should be the days of “I taught myself so now I can [design software in a professional setting / design a bridge in a professional setting].” I’m not advocating gatekeeping - if you want to build a small bridge at the end of your garden for personal use, go for it. If you want to build a bridge in your local town over a river, you’re gonna need professional accreditation. Same should be true for software engineering now.

Software exists from the vendor, but it’s not open source and/or not part of Linux mainline.

Hence the effort to develop an open source (and mainlined) alternative.

Whether this is a good use of effort and/or whether you believe the vendor should be doing the Linux development or not, and/or whether they should open-source their proprietary drivers, will depend on your personal views.