cygx

> So not balking means being willing, right?

In this case, willing to proceed with what he was planning to do, that is, moving from Windows to Linux against Microsoft's wishes.

edit: And you're right that this implies "balking at Microsoft's proposal". Personally, I did read the sentence as intended ("they wanted him to balk (= stop his plans), but he did not"), but I can see how the phrasing can be misleading...

Per Merriam-Webster, 'to balk' means:

1: to refuse abruptly

2: to stop short and refuse to proceed

Per Cambridge Dictionary, it means:

to be unwilling to do something or to allow something to happen

So "He did not balk" can be read as "He did not stop" / "He was willing to let things proceed"

Merriam-Webster has balk as to stop short and refuse to proceed. To understand the intended meaning, put the emphasis on the first part: If the mayor did not balk, he did not stop, that is, he refused to comply and proceeded with his plan.

>> a public domain codebase with some GPL code

> which would still be a GPL codebase

If the GPL-licensed parts have become so insignificant that they can easily be replaced, it effectively no longer would be.

In the absence of more specific legislation or court decisions, the same rules that cover usage of any other public domain code would apply.

You want to prevent the transition from a GPL codebase with some public domain code to a public domain codebase with some GPL code. One way to do so is to outright ban contributions leveraging tools that are able to generate public domain code at superhuman speeds.

As you pointed out yourself, there's always the option to create a fork that does allow AI contributions, which may eventually force a re-assessment of the policy if the gap in utility grows too large.

Note that humans do come with different types of 'input streams':

Hit my knee in the right spot, and I'll kick my leg, no choice about it. Scream at me to LIFT MY EFFING LEG (in a language I do understand), and I may or may not do so. Write the same thing on a piece of paper, and I generally won't (unless there is some very specific context).

With AI systems, we have the benefit that the distinction between such pathways is in principle under our control.

On the flip side, Coderberg does not owe anyone free infrastructure...

I'd argue there's a qualitative difference between using machine learning for specific data analysis tasks, and using a generic agentic AI system controlled by some corporate entity. The association of the term 'AI' with the latter is increasing.

It's a matter of definitions, but I can at least understand someone wanting to make a distinction between reactive and non-reactive 'AI' (such as data filters).

There's overlap and edge cases, though: Maybe you have a program that summarizes texts. One could argue that's no different from a passive filter. But can you then ask questions about the text? That's unquestionably AI.

Shrugs. I have no issue with someone claiming that a company making drills used exclusively for oil drilling is in the 'oil business'. However, I would not call such a company an 'oil company', so I take your point...