3 ms·
All I can think of is Steve Yegge [1]: "They have no right to do this. Open source does not mean the source is somehow 'open'." My code is on Github so that pe
by FeepingCreature 4y ago
All I can think of is Steve Yegge [1]: "They have no right to do this. Open source does not mean the source is somehow 'open'."
My code is on Github so that people can read it, reuse it and learn from it. "The freedom to study how the program works", as the FSF says. If some of the people reading it are machines, why would that matter?
[1] http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2010/07/wikileaks-to-leak-5000-open-source-java.html http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2010/07/wikileaks-to-leak-50...
- happymellon 4y agoBecause a lot of this code would be put into closed source software, which is against the licence and would prevent people from exercising the right to study how a program works.
- FeepingCreature 4y agoBut I don't care if closed source programmers read my GPL code! The freedom to learn is not copyleft. So long as they put independent effort into their work, they're good in my book. Shared knowledge is a vital commons, and I'm honored if I can contribute to it. Maybe this goes back to that debunked paper that claimed that transformers were only remixing input samples?
- happymellon 4y agoThey aren't reading your code. This is a program copy/pasting code without attribution.
- FeepingCreature 4y agoAgain, the paper that said that transformers only copypasted input samples was highly misleading. It seems clear to me that Codex has true understanding. (Yes, I know that people have gotten secrets to appear in the output by prompting it in clever ways. That this happens doesn't prove that Codex doesn't understand what it's doing, it just shows that Codex doesn't understand everything.)