the wording on that is a bit sad. There are people who submit total AI slop however those of us using the tools correctly will submit code that looks no different than what a person might write themselves by hand.

I wonder how they intend to deal with that (as in what do you do if you can't even tell it is AI generated).

Yeah, copyright infringement is inevitable.

I'm of the opinion that if the generated AI code looks no different than from human code then it didn't save you anything. And if the code was trivial enough for an LLM to not need rework it probably could be covered with a template snippet from your crafted collection of templates.

And there's research showing no productivity improvement at all, even negative.

This isn't going to stop me removing flatpak from my future systems.

Edit: Flatpak 2.0 turns out might not be a thing. Kinda changes little for my future systems tho.

Native system packages & AppImages only for me.

I'm not a fan of this. Even the author acknowledges that "LLMs are inevitable, and the reality is that you can expect less organically grown code as time goes on" and that exceptions are necessary: "Exceptions may be granted for mature, well-maintained projects."

I hope this is a temporary solution before a more transparent policy can be developed.

FlatHub is starting to remind me of Snap.

I’ve tried reporting a few issues, but no one ever seems to pay any attention.

For example, Hüma Browser was discontinued a years ago, and the URL that FlatHub lists as the project’s homepage now redirects to a phishing site.

I don’t think anyone is monitoring their community forums. My account is still pending approval — Discourse forum software’s classic “you posted too soon after joining” issue.

#FlatHub #SnapD #Linux #OpenSource