But you're right it's probably unenforceable. They will probably end up accepting PRs which were written with LLM assistance, but if they do it will be because it's well-written code that the contributor can explain in a way that doesn't sound to the maintainers like an LLM is answering their questions. And maybe at that point the community as a whole would have less to worry about - if we're still assuming that we're not setting ourselves up for horrible licence violation problems in the future when it turns out an LLM spat out something verbatim from a GPLed project.

Best time I ever had in a job was writing WPF applications in C# using ReactiveUI. Once we really understood the underlying model we were plugging stuff together so easily. It is a really good model, but I can't see how React is a good example of it.

Of course I had lots to complain about then, WPF had bugs, C# has a number of big problems, but it was, overall, very nice.

Oh wait no that would be incredibly painful for everyone. Yes reducing memory requirements would be great but not at that cost.

There's been a lot of talk about it for the past few years but we're just not seeing impacts. Oh sure, management talk it up a lot, but where's the corresponding increase in feature delivery? Software stability? Gross profit? EBITDA?

Give me something measurable and I'll consider it.

Yes there's the problem of intermittency, varying sun availability and so forth - which is why solar will never provide 100% of our power and we'll also need grid-scale storage facilities and domestic batteries and all sorts of stuff - but just imagine being able to make that many panels in the first place! Literally solar on every roof, that's transformative.

But sure, let's send it all to space to power questionable "AI" datacentres so we can make more fake nudes.

/s

Also, in my experience, it's the non-tech-enthusiasts who are diving into LLMs because they don't understand what is actually going on and it basically looks like a repeat of the whole thing about ELIZA a few decades ago. Just this time it's vastly more expensive and has to run on a datacentre and can write you an essay instead of just rephrasing your question.

Want to impress the world? End poverty. Advance cancer treatment. Build a viable nuclear fusion power plant. Make an HIV vaccine and sell it affordably across the world. We could be done with the Cold War-era rocket-waving.

But my initial reading of F-Droid's explanation was "hang on, Google are going to get slammed for the same thing Apple got slammed for" so I hope they do come to the same conclusion and do it quickly, before F-Droid is entirely dead.

Maybe that's Google's intention - that the time lag on enforcement is going to be long enough that they achieve half the goal anyway.

And keep players in condition for when the crowds could come back without too much risk of death.

Those are both pretty good reasons to keep having the games.

But they do have no tailpipe emissions, so they're still kicking out a lot less air pollution than a combustion-fuelled vehicle with not just the carbon dioxide but the myriad of pollutants which lower urban air quality so much.

Ultimately, a less dusty tyre would be a good thing, but the significant impact we can make now is to continue the EV transition knowing that like all solutions it's imperfect and we also need to use fewer vehicles and keep looking for better options.

You still have a very hot very radioactive lump of death in the middle of your busted reactor when it's all done though, and that's definitely not fun. Fusion failure modes - in current designs anyway - are far more appealing to anybody who happens to be in the area at the time.