4 ms·

The tone of the responses here is absurd. Guys, be grateful for some progress. Instead of having to retype boilerplate code, your productivity is now enhanced b

The tone of the responses here is absurd. Guys, be grateful for some progress. Instead of having to retype boilerplate code, your productivity is now enhanced by having a system that can do it for you. This is primarily about reducing the need to re-type total boilerplate and/or copy/paste from Stackoverflow. If you were to let some of the people here run things we'd never have any form of progress with anything ever.

qayxc 5y ago
Questions like this go much deeper and illustrate issues that need to be addressed before the technology becomes standard and widely adopted. It's not about progress or supressing it, it's a fundamental question about whether it is OK for huge companies to profit from the work of others without as much as giving credit, and if using AI this way represents an instance of doing so. The latter aspect goes beyond productivity or licensing - the OP asserts that AI isn't equivalent to a student who learned from examples how to perform a task, but rather replicates (recalls) or reproduces the works of others (e.g. the training material). It's a question that goes beyond this particular application: what about GAN-based generators? Do they merely reproduce slight variations of the training material? If so, wouldn't the authors of the training material have some kind of intellectual property rights to the generated works? This doesn't just concern code snippets, it's a general question about AI, crediting creators, and circumventing licensing and intellectual property rights.
joepie91_ 5y ago
> Instead of having to retype boilerplate code, your productivity is now enhanced by having a system that can do it for you We already invented something for that a couple decades ago, and it's called a "library". And unlike this thing, libraries don't launder appropriation of the public commons with total disregard for those who have actually built that commons.

qayxc 5y ago

Questions like this go much deeper and illustrate issues that need to be addressed before the technology becomes standard and widely adopted. It's not about progress or supressing it, it's a fundamental question about whether it is OK for huge companies to profit from the work of others without as much as giving credit, and if using AI this way represents an instance of doing so. The latter aspect goes beyond productivity or licensing - the OP asserts that AI isn't equivalent to a student who learned from examples how to perform a task, but rather replicates (recalls) or reproduces the works of others (e.g. the training material). It's a question that goes beyond this particular application: what about GAN-based generators? Do they merely reproduce slight variations of the training material? If so, wouldn't the authors of the training material have some kind of intellectual property rights to the generated works? This doesn't just concern code snippets, it's a general question about AI, crediting creators, and circumventing licensing and intellectual property rights.

joepie91_ 5y ago

> Instead of having to retype boilerplate code, your productivity is now enhanced by having a system that can do it for you We already invented something for that a couple decades ago, and it's called a "library". And unlike this thing, libraries don't launder appropriation of the public commons with total disregard for those who have actually built that commons.