They realise that it's a satire site, right?
this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2026
56 points (95.2% liked)
Programming
28405 readers
299 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
They built it. They're making money on it. Is that still satire?
Yes. Have you read the testimonials?
It stopped being a joke the moment they actually built the product and accepted money for it. As far as I'm concerned, those testimonials are just AI generated as well and the agent didn't get the memo that this wasn't sarcasm. It gives off real "Just a prank, bro" energy
Being fair, they might've done it to make it a detestable as possible to force some kind of policy change... Still, it's hardly a joke anymore.
They may or may not, what makes it relevant nonetheless is the real loophole and the ethical/legal questions that ensue.
It's good that they don't realize it's satire, the satire is doing it's job in getting people to realize how laws need to change around AI code.
Very effective satire. I wish I would have thought of it.
I've been pointing at this problem for at least 2 years now to deaf ears, satire like this will force people to listen.
A coworker of mine has been talking about this for a while now. And he keeps saying it's a double edged sword, because in theory this could also be used to forcibly open source proprietary software.
We'll see I guess.
Well, you could do this yourself too... it's not just an "issue" with AI, but that copyright is not meant to protect against competition forever.
Well, you could do this yourself too…
No, but you and someone else could collaborate to do something like it, if both of you had sufficient skill in this area.
And, importantly, it would require a great deal more time and effort.
The current laws are tuned to cost, benefit, difficulty, and volume assumptions that are made outdated by LLMs.
Am I missing something? They keep saying that open-source projects could be "made proprietary" as if the original will disappear just because someone made a closed-source clone of it. Obviously it would suck to have a company make and use a private clone rather than contribute back, but is there any legal mechanism that might force the original to shut down?