Litchralee on Nostr: user21t nprofile1q…v9kds I can understand a new project choosing to use a ...

user21t (nprofile…kuwg) nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kyqpq9yqctcattycurn7jxu0ps5eruttfkd6q2fmydru3ndw7d0qr596qtv9kds (nprofile…9kds) I can understand a new project choosing to use a programming language which does not condone AI. And in that context, listing out which languages use AI in their development would be useful for making such an informed choice.

But for Faircamp specifically, a project that's 5 years in the making, the opportunity cost to rewrite in a new language is substantial: it would basically pause all new feature development for a while, until the new implementation is at parity with the old. To be clear, this can absolutely be done, but it has to be clear that this is what the community wants, which should include people who want to switch to Faircamp but need certain features to make it viable for them to switch.

I say this not because we should roll over and accept AI encroachment into the software commons. But rather to protect the limited volunteer effort of the folks working on Faircamp: unlike a corporate gig that can throw money at another team, there's only so many devs. And if they're spending time on a rewrite of something that they already developed, that's a lot different than the motivation of seeking to displace Bandcamp.

IMO, Faircamp is a form of harm reduction: the more people that can switch off from Bandcamp, the fewer people that are locked into the latter's ecosystem. Will a rewrite further that goal?