Piero Bosio Social Web Site Personale

@evan @ted As it stands I'm kind of an odd example. I'm only a maintainer on one (mostly) unpaid project and I'm also the only maintainer. Most of my unpaid contributions to other projects are just one-offs, though the number of projects I've contributed small amounts to is quite large (it includes things like libpng, libtiff, FreeBSD, Linux (though now I am paid for that and my contributions have skyrocketed) and a significant number of other projects I'm forgetting).

Said long-term project I've been working on for nearly 13 years but I've done less and less work on it over the last 9 of those, after having burnt out. As such, I don't really have opinions on those questions. But I also have refused to start new projects as this project still isn't what I'd consider feature complete and I don't want to further split my attention.

@evan @ted If you think someone is obligated to put work into something despite not being paid, that's called entitlement. If you want to ensure they keep working on something, you should make it worth their while. Otherwise you're just exploiting them and demanding free labor. It's the same thing as "working for exposure".

What their goals are is entirely orthogonal to the question you asked. Your question was broadly applicable. Narrowing the scope is moving the goalposts.

And I say this as someone who's put tens of thousands of hours into FOSS projects without the promise of compensation.

Holy misleading Wikipedia articles, Batman! This article loves to pretend that a bunch of things that could I guess technically be termed AI have anything to do with the modern sense that's being pushed by the tech bubble. Electric Sheep uses a genetic algorithm wholly powered by knowing users. It is not generative AI. But if you read this article you sure wouldn't know that. Someone needs to take a hatchet to this article.