1. The credits for my code are protected (with the GPL you have to tell where your code originates from). That's the ego part. It's important to me because I'm not paid for my software. So credits are an important reward.

2. I want people to think twice about reusing my code. I use the GPL license because I think sharing software is the ultimate goal. So I force people to share my software by using the GPL. That may sound "extreme" (that's the whole open source vs free software debate) but, not being a full time politician, I can't change laws to push society in the direction I want. At my level, that "push" is the GPL choice. Maybe it's not noble enough, maybe it's cowardice, but it's my way (compare that with those who simply don't care).

AI severely weakens both of these. And for people like me, this forces us to reconsider our position. For my part, I accept the legal point of view that A.I. doesn't steal code, and just reproduces the ideas in the code. So, as far as ideas can flow in society, I'm OK with that (that's the principle behind copyright laws).

If AI has its way, one day one will not need to write software, we'll just ask the AI. In that case, software will be dead and free software will die with it too. By then I'll do my "local politics" another way and follow the next RMS.

For example, I'm working on an emulator in a field where emulators do exist since long. So I set myself to improve these emulators by emulating tricky corner cases. These corner cases do not exist in AI's memory because nobody has ever coded them. So although I use quite a lot of AI to investigate the corner cases, the actual problem solving is entirely mine. So I stay happy :-)

In my daytime job, a big part of what I do already exists in some form or another (fluid dynamics). But my job is more of understanding what I do so that I can convince someone else that my programs are robust and reliable. So again, I'm programming a lot with AI, but the important stuff, it's my skill to understand it, not AI.

So, as always, the capital must leave some its power to the state.

Most probably, if AI is able to do something bad, it will. Once the damage will be done, states will react. The question will be: will there still be room to react ?

Of course there may be errors in lean, of course AI can take advantage of it, of course "carefully" is full of errors. So the only thing left is waiting to see if the result holds. And yes, it may take 30 years...

Like inventing waterless toilets when people just need access to clean water ?

The sad story is that we don't need innovation, we need better politics.

Oh and he could open source windows, that would make us more equitable for sure.

It was very long since I wrote any sort of C++ and using rust was pretty refreshing.

Second "besides": marty's PC may not have a lot of breadth in terms of supported hardware, but it gets the accuracy totally right. It's a very special kind of achievement.

(I'm not a rust fanboy :-) I just appreciate the language for writing my emulator)

I also tell them to remember that food prices and insurances prices will inevitably go up.

And I won't much more that that because everything else fails (even the death of 1000 persons in my country during this years heat waves just make people say "bah, that's life")

(the site is : "An ongoing multi-author open source project to formalise a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem in the Lean theorem prover.")

just ditch the plane. That will be so much money you can invest in net-positive technologies.

https://www.anthropic.com/news/fable-mythos-access