The problem is ownership, not the code. Lets take you as an example, *Mario*.
You used Claude and became convinced that you could get FreeBSD to *boot* on the PlayStation 4. I spent time explaining why your approach was not going to work (secureboot, SAMU, undocumented architecture, SMC). A normal developer response would have been to stop, revaluate the assumptions, and figure out which premise was wrong. Instead, you doubled down and said the problem was that you were too poor to get it done. I even offered you 200$ if you succeeded in booting FreeBSD on the PS4. And I set the bar low: just get it to userland. I wasn’t asking you to reverse-engineer the AMDGPU quirks, the SMC, or the rest of the undocumented hardware. I did it, so it not an impossible challenge and Orbis is a FreeBSD 9 fork. What did you do instead? You went back to the AI and came out convinced that you could boot Linux on it instead, ignoring the fact that people have been jailbreaking and researching the PlayStation 4 for more than a decade. People from the Linux community called you out on that too. This is exactly the kind of AI-powered development that makes other developers stop wanting to interact with people who use AI. The problem isnt that you used Claude. I use AI myself. I use it to review my work, challenge assumptions, and reword my English. But every line of code that lands under my name is something I take ownership of. If it is wrong, I was wrong. I don't get to point at the model. And since we are talking about ownership and copied code, here is another example. I authored *ActionMCP gem (In Ruby)*. I barely advertised it for months, but people were already using it. About five months later, somebody used Devin AI to produce *Active*MCP (See Action != Active) and promoted it on Hacker News and Reddit. He got 300 github stars in days... It wasn't just "similar". Large parts reproduced what I had built from the very beginning, including reproducing problems I had already fixed, such as hanging under load. The AI even reproduced my copyright text (with my name) and examples in the other repo. That last part was funny. I write examples about myself or regions where I live. The owner of the other repository is from China, yet his project arrived at the same examples. You can find the repo examples, the examples are not generic. and the gems in rubygems But even then, copying code wasn't the part that bothered me most. When I spoke with the `author`, he repeatedly called STDIO => "Studio." and SSE => SSR. He told me the issues was "on his radar" and admitted the AI generated the examples and he liked them... then he yanked the project a few days later. After that, some of his users started contacting me as if i had bought the gem from him and I was responsible for supporting it. That is the ownership problem. AI is a tool. we agree on that point, . But saying "the responsibility is mine" has no meaning unless you understand, verify, defend, maintain, and take responsibility for what the tool produces. If you submit code you don't understand and don't test, make claims you cannot defend, or publish somebody else's work without even recognizing where it came from, then putting your human name above the AI output does not create accountability. PS: my offer still stands for you until i release or someone release FreeBSD for PS4/5. A PS4 is less than 100 euros, so you are risking nothing. Pure profit. PS2: If you do PS5, Luis Rossmaan, offers over 10k$ (but it more challenging) Regards Abdelkader
