What do you mean?

Think of it like those in favour of communism. They find it easy to demand that other people share the output of their work for free so they can benefit from it. Similarily, programmers that produce insignificant code are happy to use the valued work of others for free. For instance, corporations have no issue in using the enormously valuable work of open source developers and neither do some of their mediocre workers. Essentially this is what we are witnessing with demands from workers that folk's work is made available to them so they too can be productive.

I fail to see how that is relevant to your original comment. You seem to suggest that if you're fine with AI being trained on your code it means that your code is insignificant, which of course makes no sense.

Well it is highly likely that the code has zero financial value if you are fine with AI being trained against it.

So no code with permissive licenses has any financial value? I release all my code under MIT which means people are free to do whatever they want with it, including training their AI on it.

What are you trying to argue about using open source? A valuable developer uses an open source project when appropriate instead of wasting resources succumbing to NIH.

A valuable developer uses an open source project according to its licensing terms. An unvaluable corporation steals said code and resells it via an ai.

On the contrary, only someone who can't produce more value than an AI should be afraid of being replaced by it. Our value is in abstract thought and using tools as force multipliers, not writing boilerplate by hand.

It seems be worth a good six figures to my employer and appreciated by the thousands who play the MMO I worked on for free. Try again.