> “a broader conversation [about the ethics of AI-assisted software] seemed unlikely to alter your [SFC's] stance, which is why we [GitHub] have not responded to your [SFC's] detailed questions”
To be fair, there is a valid point here. If even one party has already made their conclusions and enters into a discussion with no willingness to even entertain ideas, instead just to fight their corner, then why would other parties willingly take part? We've all had those engineering discussions where no matter what is said, there are still engineers who refuse to entertain a concept. They're difficult and draining. I can see why the request would be refused if this was the case.
It seems far more likely that GitHub isn't answering the questions because they don't have answers that support what they're doing.
The ask here isn't "don't ever use AI code assistance tools", the ask here is "don't ship something as an AI code assistance product that fails to provide any means of tracking provenance and handling license compliance".
Quoting the post:
> Meanwhile, the work of our committee continues to carefully study the general question of AI-assisted software development tools. One recent preliminary finding was that AI-assisted software development tools can be constructed in a way that by-default respects FOSS licenses. We will continue to support the committee as they explore that idea further, and, with their help, we are actively monitoring this novel area of research. While Microsoft's GitHub was the first mover in this area, by way of comparison, early reports suggest that Amazon's new CodeWhisperer system (also launched last week) seeks to provide proper attribution and licensing information for code suggestions.
I think it's the other way around - if you only talk to those whose stance you think you can change then you are implicitly admitting that you are unwilling to change your stance. Otherwise there would still be value in hearing the other party out to see if they have anything to say that would make you reconsider your position.
To be fair, there is a valid point here. If even one party has already made their conclusions and enters into a discussion with no willingness to even entertain ideas, instead just to fight their corner, then why would other parties willingly take part? We've all had those engineering discussions where no matter what is said, there are still engineers who refuse to entertain a concept. They're difficult and draining. I can see why the request would be refused if this was the case.