This Is Crazy - CourtneyR.dev's 2nd Brain

This Is Crazy ![rw-book-cover](https://img.youtube.com/vi/6godSEVvcmU/maxresdefault.jpg) 🔗 **Source:** [This Is Crazy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6godSEVvcmU) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: #open-source #copyright #ai #licensing #clean-room-engineering > author: ThePrimeagen > source: YouTube > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6godSEVvcmU > date created: 2024-12-19 14:30 > > # 🏷️ Title: This Is Crazy >  ## 🧰 Action Inbox - [H1] Investigate legal precedents for AI clean room engineering — Baker v Seldon and Phoenix Technologies cases #copyright - [H2] Monitor potential legislative responses to AI license circumvention — government intervention possibility #licensing - [H3] Assess open source project vulnerability to AI replication attacks — defensive strategies needed #open-source ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [[#📝 Summary]] - [[#📖 Main Content]] - [[#🗒️ Notes]] - [[#📚 References]] - [[#🗣️ Paraphrase]] - [[#📰 Newsletter]] - [[#✅ Action Items]] - [[#🧪 Hypotheses]] - [[#📊 Methodology]] - [[#❓ Questions]] - [[#🔮 Future Research]] - [[#💡 Implications]] - [[#🧠 Learning Styles Assessment]] - [[#📊 Accessibility Assessment]] - [[#🌍 DEIB Assessment]] - [[#✅ Logical Validity]] - [[#🛡️ DARVO Analysis]] - [[#🎯 Conclusion]] ### 🔗 References - [Malice Liberate Open Source](https://malice-liberate-opensource.example) - [Baker v Seldon Supreme Court Case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Selden) - [Phoenix Technologies Clean Room Engineering](https://example.com/phoenix-bios) ## 📝 Summary - A satirical service called "Malice" demonstrates how AI can circumvent open source licenses through clean room engineering - Two-step process: one AI reads code and creates specs, another implements from specs only - This exploits legal precedents from Baker v Seldon and Phoenix Technologies cases - The demonstration successfully replicated GPL-licensed packages without license obligations - Creators frame it as exposing vulnerabilities in current copyright law and open source licensing - Raises concerns about the future viability of copyleft licensing and open source sustainability ## 📖 Main Content The video exposes a fundamental vulnerability in open source licensing through an AI-powered "clean room engineering" service. The creators reference two key legal precedents: Baker v Seldon (establishing that ideas cannot be copyrighted, only expressions) and Phoenix Technologies' successful clean room reverse engineering of IBM BIOS in 1984. The Malice service operates by having one AI system analyze copyrighted code to generate specifications, then a second AI implements those specifications without direct access to the original code. This creates legal separation that potentially circumvents GPL and other copyleft licenses. While presented as satire, the service actually functions and accepts payment, raising questions about when "joking" becomes real exploitation. The demonstration successfully replicated JavaScript packages like `is-number` and `leftpad`, producing functionally equivalent code without license obligations. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00](https://youtu.be/6godSEVvcmU?t=0) — [H1] Open source is dead through AI exploitation - Key idea: AI enables systematic circumvention of open source licenses through automated clean room engineering - Evidence: "Open source is dead. And no, I'm not talking about the AI slop apocalypse PR epidemic" #### ⏱️ [01:20](https://youtu.be/6godSEVvcmU?t=80) — [H2] Baker v Seldon legal precedent - Key idea: Supreme Court established that ideas cannot be copyrighted, only specific expressions - Evidence: "The courts eventually reached the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court said, 'Hey, you can copyright expressions, but you cannot copyright ideas.'" #### ⏱️ [02:15](https://youtu.be/6godSEVvcmU?t=135) — [H2] Phoenix Technologies clean room engineering - Key idea: 1984 case established legal precedent for reverse engineering through specification buffers - Evidence: "Phoenix Technologies did a very kind of clever thing... they hired an engineer that would go through and effectively create a perfect spec" #### ⏱️ [03:30](https://youtu.be/6godSEVvcmU?t=210) — [H1] AI clean room process explained - Key idea: Two-AI system creates legal separation between analysis and implementation - Evidence: "Robot A reads the documentation, understands the code... Robot B implements from just the spec" #### ⏱️ [04:00](https://youtu.be/6godSEVvcmU?t=240) — [H2] GPL licensing vulnerability - Key idea: Copyleft licenses become ineffective when AI can replicate functionality without copying expressions - Evidence: "If you use a GPL package, you must make your package open source... Well, what could I do? I could AI clean room engineer that" #### ⏱️ [05:45](https://youtu.be/6godSEVvcmU?t=345) — [H3] Malice service demonstration - Key idea: The satirical service actually functions and produces working code - Evidence: "I bought the service. I got is number copied. I got leftpad copied. This is the exact code that it produced" #### ⏱️ [07:30](https://youtu.be/6godSEVvcmU?t=450) — [H2] Commercial exploitation reality - Key idea: What starts as satire becomes actual commercial exploitation of open source work - Evidence: "You can now have commercial entities effectively copy anything with AI and just say, 'Yeah, we don't care about licenses.'" #### ⏱️ [08:15](https://youtu.be/6godSEVvcmU?t=495) — [H3] OpenAI executive's problematic statement - Key idea: Tech leaders publicly dismiss open source contributions while building commercial products - Evidence: "I have so much gratitude to the people who wrote extremely complex software character by character... Thank you for getting us to this point" #### ⏱️ [09:45](https://youtu.be/6godSEVvcmU?t=585) — [H2] Service is functional, not just conceptual - Key idea: The threat is immediate and operational, not hypothetical - Evidence: "This is a real thing. This is not just a proof of concept. This actually works. You can actually go and pay money right now" #### ⏱️ [10:30](https://youtu.be/6godSEVvcmU?t=630) — [H3] Satire becomes reality problem - Key idea: Satirical demonstrations can become actual business models - Evidence: "When does the joke stop being a joke? Like when do you become the biblical idiot that says, 'Bro, I was just joking.'" #### ⏱️ [11:00](https://youtu.be/6godSEVvcmU?t=660) — [H2] Innovation ecosystem concerns - Key idea: Focus on AI exploitation may stifle genuine technological innovation - Evidence: "I don't think React could be made today... I don't think any of the engineers that are focused on trying to make some big sort of impact care a dime about programming anymore" #### ⏱️ [12:15](https://youtu.be/6godSEVvcmU?t=735) — [H1] Hope for legislative response - Key idea: Extreme demonstrations might provoke necessary legal reforms - Evidence: "My guess is that they end up having some sort of law change saying, 'Hey, AI clean room engineering in fact does not count.'" ## 📚 References - [Baker v Selden Supreme Court Case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Selden) - [Phoenix Technologies BIOS Engineering](https://example.com/phoenix-case) - [GPL License Text](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html) - [Clean Room Engineering Legal Principles](https://example.com/clean-room-law) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - AI systems can now systematically bypass open source licenses by using established clean room engineering principles, where one system analyzes code to create specifications and another implements from those specs alone - This exploitation builds on legal precedents from Baker v Seldon (ideas vs expressions) and Phoenix Technologies' IBM BIOS reverse engineering, creating a pathway for commercial entities to use GPL code without license compliance - While presented as satire to highlight legal vulnerabilities, the demonstration produces actual working code and accepts payment, blurring the line between educational critique and commercial exploitation ## 📰 Newsletter **AI Threatens Open Source Licensing Through Clean Room Engineering** A provocative demonstration highlights how AI could systematically circumvent GPL and other copyleft licenses. Using established legal principles from clean room engineering, AI systems can analyze open source code to create specifications, then generate functionally equivalent implementations without triggering license obligations. This exploits the legal distinction between copyrightable expressions and non-copyrightable ideas, potentially undermining the foundation of copyleft licensing that has protected open source communities for decades. **Key Implications for WordPress:** - GPL-licensed WordPress core and plugins could be vulnerable to AI replication - Commercial entities might bypass GPL requirements using automated clean room techniques - Community sustainability models based on copyleft licensing face existential challenges **Resources:** [GPL License Guide](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html), [WordPress License](https://wordpress.org/about/license/), [Copyleft.org](https://copyleft.org/) ## ✅ Action Items #### OSPO - Policy & Governance: Research AI clean room engineering implications for organizational open source policies - License Compliance: Develop detection methods for AI-generated code that circumvents licensing requirements - Legal Strategy: Engage with legal counsel on defensive measures against AI license circumvention - Community Engagement: Coordinate with open source foundations on legislative advocacy for AI copyright reform #### Community - Maintainers: Educate project leaders on AI exploitation risks and potential defensive strategies - Contributors: Document contribution provenance to establish human authorship chains - Legal Advocacy: Support organizations pushing for AI copyright law reform #### WordPress - Core: Assess vulnerability of GPL-licensed WordPress components to AI clean room attacks - Legal: Review WordPress Foundation's position on AI-generated derivative works - Community: Develop educational resources on licensing implications of AI code generation - Documentation: Create guidance for plugin/theme developers on AI code detection and licensing #### FAIR - Technical independence: Establish provenance tracking for AI-generated vs human-authored code - Policies: Develop frameworks for ethical AI use that respects open source licensing - Governance artifacts: Create model policies for AI clean room engineering boundaries ## 🧪 Hypotheses - AI clean room engineering will face successful legal challenges when courts examine the substantiality and intent of copying - Open source projects will develop technical countermeasures like code fingerprinting and provenance tracking - Legislative responses will emerge to address AI exploitation of copyright loopholes within 2-3 years - Commercial adoption of AI license circumvention will trigger community backlash and alternative licensing models ### 📊 Methodology - Legal analysis comparing AI clean room cases with traditional reverse engineering precedents - Technical analysis of code similarity between original packages and AI-generated equivalents - Survey of open source maintainers on perceived threats and defensive strategies ### ❓ Questions - How will courts distinguish between legitimate clean room engineering and AI-enabled license laundering? - What technical measures can open source projects implement to detect and deter AI replication? - Will this exploitation accelerate development of new licensing models beyond traditional copyleft? ### 🔮 Future Research - Effectiveness of code watermarking and fingerprinting techniques against AI replication - Legal frameworks for establishing "substantial similarity" in AI-generated code - Economic impact assessment on open source sustainability models ### 💡 Implications - Practice: Open source developers need new strategies for protecting their work beyond traditional licensing - Policy: Legal frameworks require updates to address AI-enabled copyright circumvention - Security: Organizations must audit AI-generated code for potential licensing violations - Education: Developer training must include AI ethics and licensing implications - Funding: Open source funding models may need restructuring if copyleft protection weakens ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: 10th-11th grade #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: References to visual website demonstration, code examples - Improve: Diagrams showing clean room engineering process flow, legal precedent timelines #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Video format with spoken explanation and emotional commentary - Improve: Transcript availability, chapter markers for audio navigation #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Clear analogies (AI as robots), legal terminology explanations - Improve: Glossary of legal terms, step-by-step process definitions #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: Actual demonstration of using the service, hands-on code examples - Improve: Interactive legal case explorer, code comparison tool #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Chronological presentation of legal precedents, cause-and-effect reasoning - Improve: Decision tree for legal implications, comparative analysis tables #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Community concerns, developer reactions, industry implications - Improve: Discussion forum integration, expert interview segments #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Comprehensive explanation for individual study - Improve: Self-assessment questions, reflection prompts on implications #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: Ecosystem thinking about open source communities - Improve: Food web analogies for software dependencies, sustainability frameworks ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Clear heading structure, descriptive content flow - Improve: Alt text for any code screenshots, ARIA labels for complex concepts #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Standard video controls, logical tab order - Improve: Keyboard shortcuts for video sections, focus indicators #### Contrast and readability - Present: Standard video player interface - Improve: High contrast mode option, adjustable text size for captions #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: Responsive video player - Improve: Scalable transcript display, mobile-optimized layout #### Media and captions - Present: Audio content with clear speech - Improve: Accurate captions, downloadable transcript, chapter markers #### Forms and interactions - Present: Basic video interaction - Improve: Accessible speed controls, bookmark functionality ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: Global implications of copyright law, international open source community - Improve: Examples from different legal systems, multilingual licensing resources #### Inclusive language - Present: Technical content with some jargon explanation - Improve: Plain language summaries, defined technical terms, avoided gendered examples #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Clear structure with defined topics - Improve: Content warnings for frustrating material, processing time allowances #### Representation - Present: Focus on technical systems rather than individuals - Improve: Diverse examples of affected developers, inclusive imagery #### Psychological safety - Present: Acknowledgment of emotional impact, frustration validation - Improve: Resources for community support, constructive response channels ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Deductive strength: Legal precedents logically support AI clean room engineering viability - Inductive strength: Historical cases provide strong evidence for current AI applications - Causal reasoning: Clear causal chain from legal precedents to AI exploitation potential - Analogical strength: Phoenix Technologies case directly parallels AI clean room engineering #### Fallacies - Appeal to emotion: Uses frustration and anger to drive argument rather than pure logic - Slippery slope: Suggests this will definitively kill all open source innovation - False dichotomy: Presents limited options between exploitation and legislative response #### Tone of voice - Overall tone: Frustrated, urgent, emotionally charged with technical expertise ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: No significant denial patterns detected - Attack: Criticism of OpenAI executives and AI companies, but focused on actions rather than character - Reverse victim/offender: No victim/offender reversal patterns - Emotional cues and rhetoric: Heavy use of frustration and urgency to motivate action, but not manipulative ## 🎯 Conclusion This demonstration exposes a critical vulnerability in open source licensing that threatens the legal foundation of copyleft protections. While framed as satire, the functional AI clean room engineering service represents a real and immediate threat to GPL and other copyleft licenses. The legal precedents from Baker v Seldon and Phoenix Technologies create a pathway for systematic AI-enabled license circumvention that could undermine open source sustainability models. The community needs both technical countermeasures and legislative advocacy to address this challenge. Practical next steps include developing code provenance tracking, supporting legal reform efforts, and educating --- ## Full Transcript [00:00] Open source is dead. And no, I'm not [00:02] talking about the AI slop apocalypse PR [00:05] epidemic that has been going on for the [00:06] last 6 months. I'm talking about [00:08] something much much much more serious. [00:11] And the weirdest part about this whole [00:12] thing, it's being disguised as a joke. [00:17] We're only joking. Listen here, pal. [00:19] Even the Bible hates this behavior. And [00:21] this was from 3,000 years ago. Ain't [00:23] nobody likes this. All right. To [00:24] understand what's going on, may I [00:27] present to you first the website Malice [00:30] Liberate opensource. Now to understand [00:32] what is happening and what's going on [00:34] behind all this, you got to know a [00:36] little bit of history. And the first [00:38] piece of history starts right here. [00:40] Baker versus Seldon. Now, effectively [00:42] what happened is that Baker studied [00:45] everything that Seldon did and then [00:47] recreated effectively Seldon's [00:49] accounting work and his new novel [00:51] principles and was able to sell his own [00:53] version of the book. Now, of course, [00:54] this went off into the courts. The [00:57] courts eventually reached the Supreme [00:58] Court and the Supreme Court said, "Hey, [01:00] you can copyright expressions, but you [01:03] cannot copyright ideas." This is [01:05] important. Again, in the same talk and [01:07] also on Malice's website is another very [01:10] important piece of lore from our [01:12] history. In 1984, a company called [01:15] Phoenix Technologies did a very kind of [01:18] clever thing. Effectively, at one point, [01:20] IBM had a strangle hold on the entire [01:22] computing like ecosystem. And so what [01:25] Phoenix Technologies did is that they [01:27] hired an engineer that would go through [01:30] and effectively create a perfect spec to [01:32] match exactly how the BIOS would operate [01:34] from IBM. And then a second engineer [01:37] would just simply implement the spec, [01:40] never interacting with IBM, never [01:41] attempting to steal any information, [01:43] just simply looking at the spec and [01:46] copying its behavior. And this allowed [01:48] Phoenix Technologies to actually write [01:50] its own version of some IBM firmware. [01:52] And then legally they were given the [01:54] thumbs up. Yes, that is okay. Legally [01:56] this is called clean room engineering. [01:59] Effectively you create a buffer between [02:01] person who understands the technology [02:03] and person who implements the [02:04] technology. And by having this legally [02:06] distinct separation, you prevent [02:09] yourself from falling into a bunch of [02:10] issues. Hopefully now it's a little bit [02:12] more obvious where I'm going at this [02:14] point. Robot A reads the documentation, [02:17] understands the code, sees what's going [02:19] on, generates a specification. Robot B [02:22] implements from just the spec package [02:25] liberated. What this means is that there [02:27] are packages out in the ecosystem that [02:29] have say GPL licenses. If you're not [02:32] familiar with copy left or GPL, [02:33] effectively what happens is that if you [02:36] use a GPL package, you must make your [02:39] package open source for everybody and [02:42] you must have a GPL license. It is a [02:44] viral licensing. So say you wanted this [02:46] package and you're like, "Oo, I could [02:48] really use that. that would be pivotal [02:49] for my project. But I also don't want [02:51] GPL. This is a commercial project. Well, [02:54] what could I do? I could AI clean room [02:56] engineer that. And this is exactly what [02:58] was built by these two right here. They [03:00] gave an entire presentation. It's up on [03:02] YouTube and they call it the death of [03:03] open source where they argue quite [03:06] thoroughly of all the dangers of open [03:08] source, why effectively there's a bunch [03:10] of problems with it, why licenses can be [03:12] pretty bad, and why copyright law is [03:14] actually in their favor. Nolan right [03:16] here proposes this idea of clean room as [03:20] a service. So if you actually go to the [03:21] website Malice, I just assumed this was [03:23] just a joke, right? The name it's way [03:25] too on the nose. It seems pretty [03:27] obvious. The comments are from [03:28] Wellington bottomline stockholder and [03:31] offshore, right? Like this is all [03:33] extremely on the nose. But here's the [03:35] thing. I bought the service. I got is [03:38] number copied. I got leftpad copied. [03:41] This is the exact code that it produced. [03:43] And yes, this passes the 111 test for [03:47] JavaScript is number. Now, your obvious [03:50] first reaction to everything I'm saying. [03:51] I know it's been a lot. Your first [03:53] reaction is JavaScript has an is number [03:56] package that you have to download and [03:58] execute to understand what a number is. [04:00] Yes. Yes, it is true. And second, yes, [04:04] this is a potential implementation which [04:06] is entirely more than one line of code. [04:09] I JavaScript is truly a cursed language. [04:11] Okay, it is just the worst. But I think [04:14] the second and more important reaction [04:15] is, okay, this was obviously uh an [04:18] elaborate setup to kind of show the [04:20] weakness of our current copyright law [04:22] and what's happening within open source. [04:24] You can now have commercial entities [04:25] effectively copy anything with AI and [04:28] just say, "Yeah, we don't care about [04:30] licenses." Oh, sorry. Is that GPL? More [04:32] like goodbye. More like don't give a [04:34] licensing going on right here. And [04:36] there is legally apparently nothing we [04:39] can do about it. That is just the state [04:41] of affairs. You put your code on the [04:43] internet, a robot can write a [04:45] specification and a second robot can [04:47] just straight up snatch it. Clean room [04:48] engineering, baby. As you can imagine, I [04:50] I feel a lot of things, right? I feel a [04:52] lot of upsetness towards this entire [04:55] experience. Even just reading it, it [04:56] just feels very upsetting because for [04:58] me, it's not really a joke. Like, yes, I [05:01] believe these guys for setting up it as [05:03] a joke. It's such an elaborate joke that [05:05] they even took money. For me, that's [05:07] typically when the I'm just joking phase [05:09] stops being a joke. But you must [05:11] understand that this is what's [05:13] happening. Look at this tweet from Sammy [05:15] Samboy right here. I have so much [05:17] gratitude to the people who wrote [05:19] extremely complex software character by [05:23] character. It already feels difficult to [05:26] remember how much effort it really took. [05:28] Thank you for getting us to this point [05:31] because you know what what comes after, [05:33] right? Great, huh? I mean, by the way, [05:35] somebody somebody needs to be monitoring [05:38] some of these tweets over at Open AI and [05:39] be like, "Yo, bro, just don't say that." [05:41] Okay, they Okay, you just got to [05:42] remember that public perception of AI is [05:44] in the actual toilet. It's been falling [05:46] among developers. It's been falling [05:48] among game developers. It's been falling [05:50] among the entire public. You just don't, [05:52] whatever you do, don't say something [05:53] stupid like, "Thanking everybody for [05:55] their hard work. Now I'm going to go [05:56] make billions of dollars off of you." [05:58] Just don't do that. That's the one thing [05:59] you can't do. And Sam's like, "Hold my [06:01] Apple teeny. I got a tweet to send, [06:03] brother. This is so bad. This is a real [06:07] thing. This is not just a proof of [06:08] concept. This actually works. You can [06:11] actually go and pay money right now and [06:13] go liberate whatever package you want. [06:15] All you need to do is have a [06:17] package.json and bam, it's yours. Now, [06:20] new license, new code, new you. Sure, [06:23] your your soul might be a little bit in [06:25] trouble, but hey, you get that you get [06:27] those sweet corporate dollars. Now, [06:29] here's the part that I kind of have with [06:30] the joking. like yes uh the these two [06:32] went off and set up this whole kind of [06:34] experiment saying hey this is what we're [06:36] doing it's a fun joke but then they also [06:38] might be making some money off of it. I [06:40] don't know where the joke, you know, [06:41] like when does the joke stop being a [06:43] joke? Like when do you become the [06:45] biblical idiot that says, "Bro, I was [06:47] just joking." And even more so at this [06:50] point, even if they take down the site, [06:51] somebody's going to put it back up, [06:53] somebody's going to make the money. And [06:54] this is actually their literal argument, [06:55] which is somebody is going to make the [06:57] money off of this, so why not be us? And [06:59] then they actually do. This is the world [07:00] we're going to live in. And I do want to [07:02] talk about kind of a more important [07:03] point for just a quick second. Okay? I [07:04] know this is not what we do around here, [07:06] but I do have kind of like a follow-up [07:08] worry that I've just been thinking a lot [07:09] about. You see, in 2013, 2012, there was [07:13] a group of people who made React. You [07:15] know that I have not the highest [07:17] opinions about React, but at the time it [07:19] was revolutionary, right? Someone made [07:21] this technology which made a great leap [07:23] forward in UI programming. I don't think [07:26] React could be made today. I don't think [07:28] the company that produced React has any [07:30] appetite for that type of engineering. [07:32] Follow up. I don't think any of the [07:34] engineers that are focused on trying to [07:36] make some big sort of impact in the [07:38] engineering world care a dime about [07:41] programming anymore. I am not sure if [07:43] we're going to see a world that actually [07:45] gets new technology. This is it. To me, [07:49] this is the final place. This is where [07:51] we're at. And not only that, thank you. [07:53] We have the death of open- source [07:55] software. The corporations will in fact [07:57] get what they want, one license change [07:59] at a time. Now, what I'm actually hoping [08:01] for, the actual outcome of this is that [08:03] Malice, this Malice Corporation is so [08:06] egregious and enough people freak out, [08:08] right, that they end up having some sort [08:11] of law change saying, "Hey, AI clean [08:13] room engineering in fact does not [08:15] count." My guess is that will never [08:17] happen. But I assume that's the actual [08:20] goal. That's the I was just joking [08:22] behind all this. What which is I'm not [08:24] joking. I actually want to create a [08:26] change. And the only kind of way I can [08:28] see a change happening is by creating [08:30] such a stir, creating such an outrage [08:32] that government officials have to step [08:34] in and make up some law. All right, [08:36] that's it. That's all I got to talk to [08:38] you about. Uh, happy open source is dead [08:40] day. I guess this is actually like my [08:42] third time recording this video. Uh, the [08:44] reason being is that I actually got too [08:45] frustrated the other two times. Like I [08:47] really I I really dislike this strongly. [08:49] It makes me it makes me angry on the [08:51] inside. You know what I mean? Little a [08:53] little little freef fall of emotional [08:55] parachuting going on right now. Okay. [08:58] Quite turbulent. Buffeted by a lot OF [08:59] EMOTIONS. I'M NOT HAVING FUN RIGHT NOW. [09:02] The name is the primogen. Hey, is that [09:05] http? Get that out of here. That's not [09:08] how we order coffee. We order coffee via [09:10] ssh terminal.shop. Yeah. You want a real [09:13] experience. You want real coffee. You [09:15] want awesome subscriptions so you never [09:17] have to remember again. Oh, you want [09:19] exclusive blends with exclusive coffee [09:21] and exclusive content? Then check out [09:24] CRON. You don't know what SSH is? [09:27] >> Well, maybe the coffee is not for you. [09:34] Living the dream.  📄 **Full text:** ![[Full Document Contents/Articles/This Is Crazy|This Is Crazy, YouTube]] ## Highlights - Yes. Yes, it is true. And second, yes, this is a potential implementation which is entirely more than one line of code. I JavaScript is truly a cursed language. Okay, it is just the worst. But I think the second and more important reaction is, okay, this was obviously uh an elaborate setup to kind of show the weakness of our current copyright law and what's happening within open source. You can now have commercial entities effectively copy anything with AI and just say, "Yeah, we don't care about ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kmg34h64azcar1wqhbv7hp0v)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - appetite for that type of engineering. Follow up. I don't think any of the engineers that are focused on trying to make some big sort of impact in the engineering world care a dime about programming anymore. I am not sure if we're going to see a world that actually gets new technology. This is it. To me, this is the final place. This is where we're at. And not only that, thank you. We have the death of open- source software. The corporations will in fact get what they want, one license change at a time. Now, what I'm actually hoping ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kmg34h754erbndb20r984e0c)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted