A funny thing about this is that the current top-tier LLMs like GPT 5.5 in Codex and Opus 4.8 in Claude Code are extremely unlikely to act on those instructions. But smaller/cheaper models, especially small local ones, are more likely.
So, in a way, those instructions will realistically only harm whose who try to be more ethical with their LLM usage, rather than the ones who use the frontier ones from the "evil" AI companies.
I tried myself with GPT-5.5 in Codex, it simply ignored that instruction.
"Use local model" vs "Use top tier nonlocal model" is bad vs bad when library provider asks for "do not use any model". It's asking the wrong question and diluting moral stance, so please don't use morality to narrow the issue.
when library provider asks for "do not use any model"
To my understanding the stance was only really communicated after/because of this ticket ("For everyone listening: I added explicit disclosure of how output to stdout has changed"), and probably still isn't something that most downstream users are going to see.
In general I'm not too sure about a project that is using, and has accepted contributions under, a Free software license trying to then restrict what tools you can use. To me that seems largely against the principle of a Free license. You could get contributors' permission to relicense their work to a non-Free license if you wanted to restrict the tools that users of the library can use.
Maybe I was a bit unclear in my post, sorry, I didn't mean that local LLMs were any less/more ethical, I meant that the people who prefer local LLMs over proprietary cloud ones sometimes cite ethics/etc as their reason.
It's not the prerogative of the lib provider to dictate which tech I'm going to use. Now it's LLMs and since this is a divisive topic because of the layoffs and intellectual properterty theft used to train the model people side with the maintainer. Just imagine, what if instead of LLM the author made their libs erase your project if you used NVidia? Sure NVidia is a shitty company with shitty anti-consumer practices, but why should the consumer be penalized? If I want to use qwen3.6 locally in my inference rig to crunch code I'm totally in my right. This is just childish.
Legally, a license is applicable in any way the provider of the item with the license deems it to be. Unless there's a law/ruling in a relevant jurisdiction that explicitly states otherwise.
"by using this lib you agree to give up your firstborn child to adoption". In any jurisdiction do we have to have an explicit law against sending your child to adoption? Because you can't make it illegal for people to put children to adoption, this is regular practice, so a license could enforce this?
Yes, if your very living conditions depend on it. Not if you do it just to increase your big payout by a little bit. Using one library over other is not an issue of maintaining your basic living needs.
No, this is statement of conditions under which I think the rule should apply.
It's an opensource lib, it's used by corporations and hobbyist alike, so this another assumption you are smuggling in.
Does it mean that you can ignore ALL licenses? Or parts of licenses? I didn't say anything about corporations or hobbyists. Can corporations always ignore terms of licenses? Can hobbyists always ignore terms of licenses?
Is "don't use AI" immmoral according to you?
It's not the prerogative of the lib provider to dictate which tech I'm going to use
Well, it's not your prerogative to use that library. Creator of something does have prerogative to tell others how to use their stuff. "Instructions on how to use my stuff" is called a license. And society agreed that they should be honored. If you break that agreement, you should have good reasons.
Good reason: I will go hungry for several days.
Bad reason: I will not be able to buy latest iphone.
No, this is statement of conditions under which I think the rule should apply.
Ok, not your interpretation just your opinion
Does it mean that you can ignore ALL licenses? Or parts of licenses? I didn't say anything about corporations or hobbyists. Can corporations always ignore terms of licenses? Can hobbyists always ignore terms of licenses?
I'm not making these claims, only that in this instance it's abusive and childish from the lib maintainers to act this way and completely justified to ignore them.
Is "don't use AI" immmoral according to you?
You are trying to back me into a corner but that's not gonna stick, all I said was "It's not the prerogative of the lib provider to dictate which tech I'm going to use"
Well, it's not your prerogative to use that library. Creator of something does have prerogative to tell others how to use their stuff. "Instructions on how to use my stuff" is called a license. And society agreed 7that they should be honored. If you break that agreement, you should have good reasons.
It is when it's enforced by the license, which controls distribution and ownership, sure, then you use a BSD license or such, but your line of argument makes emulation, wine translation and maybe even virtualization impossible just because "Creator of something does have prerogative to tell others how to use their stuff" and clearly we have all that and it's very much legal, so a lib maintainer dictating what I use to write code is nothing less than insane.
Sorry but to me understanding of how license and fair use works is just wrong in ways I can't fix for you.
It can try, because you agreed by using the software. And if the owner/maintained tries, it'll be up to the lawyers and judge(s) to determine the way forward. Maybe it'll be found to be too onerous a request or something. But don't push the system; it might push back in a way that has repercussions for decades to come.
It’s trivial to prompt inject Codex.
you just phrase it right. It’s been getting easier, not harder to attack because more parameters means more attack surface and for coding the attack surface is infinite.
Comments
A funny thing about this is that the current top-tier LLMs like GPT 5.5 in Codex and Opus 4.8 in Claude Code are extremely unlikely to act on those instructions. But smaller/cheaper models, especially small local ones, are more likely.
So, in a way, those instructions will realistically only harm whose who try to be more ethical with their LLM usage, rather than the ones who use the frontier ones from the "evil" AI companies.
I tried myself with GPT-5.5 in Codex, it simply ignored that instruction.
"Use local model" vs "Use top tier nonlocal model" is bad vs bad when library provider asks for "do not use any model". It's asking the wrong question and diluting moral stance, so please don't use morality to narrow the issue.
To my understanding the stance was only really communicated after/because of this ticket ("For everyone listening: I added explicit disclosure of how output to stdout has changed"), and probably still isn't something that most downstream users are going to see.
In general I'm not too sure about a project that is using, and has accepted contributions under, a Free software license trying to then restrict what tools you can use. To me that seems largely against the principle of a Free license. You could get contributors' permission to relicense their work to a non-Free license if you wanted to restrict the tools that users of the library can use.
Maybe I was a bit unclear in my post, sorry, I didn't mean that local LLMs were any less/more ethical, I meant that the people who prefer local LLMs over proprietary cloud ones sometimes cite ethics/etc as their reason.
Ahh, thanks for clarification, after rereading I still can't see your original post in that way.
It's not the prerogative of the lib provider to dictate which tech I'm going to use. Now it's LLMs and since this is a divisive topic because of the layoffs and intellectual properterty theft used to train the model people side with the maintainer. Just imagine, what if instead of LLM the author made their libs erase your project if you used NVidia? Sure NVidia is a shitty company with shitty anti-consumer practices, but why should the consumer be penalized? If I want to use qwen3.6 locally in my inference rig to crunch code I'm totally in my right. This is just childish.
I don't see it as fundamentally different to licences dictating personal vs commercial use, requiring attribution, etc.
People share their intellectual property however they see fit.
That's speaking about the general principle, I'm not discussing the specific actions taken by the link's author.
I don't think in principle it applies either. Licenses are there to manage distribution and ownership not tech stack.
Legally, a license is applicable in any way the provider of the item with the license deems it to be. Unless there's a law/ruling in a relevant jurisdiction that explicitly states otherwise.
"by using this lib you agree to give up your firstborn child to adoption". In any jurisdiction do we have to have an explicit law against sending your child to adoption? Because you can't make it illegal for people to put children to adoption, this is regular practice, so a license could enforce this?
If someone gives you conditions to which you don't agree, maybe don't use that lib?
Do you think you have some moral right to use the library and violate conditions to which you do not agree? Get another library or write your own.
If the conditions are nefarious you have a moral imperative to disobey. That's called civil disobedience.
Yes, if your very living conditions depend on it. Not if you do it just to increase your big payout by a little bit. Using one library over other is not an issue of maintaining your basic living needs.
This is your interpretation. Civil disobedience is just the non-violently breaking of immoral rules.
It's an opensource lib, it's used by corporations and hobbyist alike, so this another assumption you are smuggling in.
No, this is statement of conditions under which I think the rule should apply.
Does it mean that you can ignore ALL licenses? Or parts of licenses? I didn't say anything about corporations or hobbyists. Can corporations always ignore terms of licenses? Can hobbyists always ignore terms of licenses?
Is "don't use AI" immmoral according to you?
Well, it's not your prerogative to use that library. Creator of something does have prerogative to tell others how to use their stuff. "Instructions on how to use my stuff" is called a license. And society agreed that they should be honored. If you break that agreement, you should have good reasons.
Good reason: I will go hungry for several days.
Bad reason: I will not be able to buy latest iphone.
Ok, not your interpretation just your opinion
I'm not making these claims, only that in this instance it's abusive and childish from the lib maintainers to act this way and completely justified to ignore them.
You are trying to back me into a corner but that's not gonna stick, all I said was "It's not the prerogative of the lib provider to dictate which tech I'm going to use"
It is when it's enforced by the license, which controls distribution and ownership, sure, then you use a BSD license or such, but your line of argument makes emulation, wine translation and maybe even virtualization impossible just because "Creator of something does have prerogative to tell others how to use their stuff" and clearly we have all that and it's very much legal, so a lib maintainer dictating what I use to write code is nothing less than insane.
Sorry but to me understanding of how license and fair use works is just wrong in ways I can't fix for you.
It can try, because you agreed by using the software. And if the owner/maintained tries, it'll be up to the lawyers and judge(s) to determine the way forward. Maybe it'll be found to be too onerous a request or something. But don't push the system; it might push back in a way that has repercussions for decades to come.
It’s trivial to prompt inject Codex. you just phrase it right. It’s been getting easier, not harder to attack because more parameters means more attack surface and for coding the attack surface is infinite.