Then you should use BSD0, not MIT. The assumption should be that people chose the license they chose for a reason, and their intent should be honored.

https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD

Probably. I don't mind it, if they give me credit (I do, on my work), but it's not imperative.

Unlike other licenses, I don't think I'll have a bunch of self-appointed juntas going after people that use my code without attribution.

I wonder if the license is still binding in the other direction though. Moving forward, by publishing the code on the Internet you know you’re training an AI to copy it.

What if you published a subtle proof of concept that takes out nuclear plants, and then some knucklehead deployed it because Copilot suggested it?

This is an interesting thought.

I could see certain...agencies doing something like seeding the tech scene with insecure hashing algorithms, and them becoming a part of the Canon, due to consumption by uncritical ML training algorithms.

We get back to the old "data quality" conundrum. We need to have a way to rate the quality of our data, which then opens the door to corruption and gaming.

The circle of life, I guess...