2026-03-27 16:54 UTC
Replies (3)
-
@indutny@mean.engineer 2026-03-27 17:00
@zkat @bengl I disagree with the “unenforceable” argument too, but I deeply respect contributors posting this comment. They are part of the driving force behind Node.js and I don't think they have ill intentions even though we are not in agreement on LLM use.
-
@bengl@mas.to 2026-03-27 19:33
@zkat @indutny Your posts on BlueSky last year were a big part in informing my current opinion/stance on LLMs. So, thank you!
-
@purple@tech.lgbt 2026-03-27 23:55
@zkat @indutny @bengl also, and to be clear I'm not involved in npm spaces and haven't read that thread, this is a general comment, a lot of people making that argument seem to also be of the opinion that there's no point even thinking about avoiding things like GitHub and their policies re training because ‘they'll train on it anyway’. Literally arguing that consent isn't worth discussing, much less worrying about, because these same companies that they are apparently in favour of, will violate it anyway. Your fair game simply for existing on the internet, apparently. ‘implicit consent’ one said. They then seem to have absolutely zero comprehension of why some of us are utterly horrified by such ‘arguments’. Not sure it's a coincidence that so far it's always a man proposing that one. (and yes, I personally know men who are also horrified by it and do value consent, settle down everyone)