4 ms·

> Another way to look at it is anyone can look at source available code to learn how to program without breaking a license. Yes, and exactly ZERO amount of mon

by dgfitz 2y ago

> Another way to look at it is anyone can look at source available code to learn how to program without breaking a license. Yes, and exactly ZERO amount of money have exchanged hands in this scenario. Learning is dope, the more the better. The difference is, someone makes money off it, and not the persons(s) that wrote the code. This is not a valid argument

threatofrain 2y ago
Learning without making money does not shield you from copyright violation, otherwise public school teachers would just start saving money by copying whole texts. We don’t live in a society where it’s okay for an 8 year old to say “but I’m just trying to learn, I’m not a business!” And making new music which is a synthesis of your life experience with copyrighted music does not mean copyright violation, regardless if you’re making money or compensating all the authors who’ve inspired you.
- pc86 2y ago
  > We don’t live in a society where it’s okay for an 8 year old to say “but I’m just trying to learn, I’m not a business!” I mean we absolutely do if you're an 8 year old. Except in the most NIMBY HOA-driven areas of the culture nobody expects a kid setting up a lemonade stand to get a business license or submit to health code inspections.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- darby_nine 2y ago
  > otherwise public school teachers would just start saving money by copying whole texts This is literally a thing today. It may be illegal but the idea of prosecuting this is insane.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
pc86 2y ago
In this example a person is looking at code they can't legally copy, learning from it, and re-implementing the same functionality. Someone's definitely making money off of that. That person, that person's employer, clients and vendors, lots of people. People get upset about AI because 1) the scale is much bigger because no human can read and generally remember all the code on GitHub while a sufficiently large model can, 2) it's a lot easier to prompt an AI into giving you a passable MVP than it is to code one from scratch, ESPECIALLY as a junior or even mid level, 3) there are unlikeable billionaires making money now where there weren't before.
- aeonik 2y ago
  I thought patents protected functionally, not copyright.
  - pc86 2y ago
    Who is talking about patents?
    - aeonik 2y ago
      In this example a person is looking at code they can't legally copy, learning from it, and re-implementing the same functionality. I thought this is what patents protected, not copyright.
- to11mtm 2y ago
  > 1) the scale is much bigger because no human can read and generally remember all the code on GitHub while a sufficiently large model can, Semi-True but it often hits an uncanny valley of either leaving enough comments in to know it was copied, or missing enough context that I'd rather the thing give me actual permalinks to whatever it thinks is relevant (i.e. like a search engine but better.) > 2) it's a lot easier to prompt an AI into giving you a passable MVP than it is to code one from scratch, ESPECIALLY as a junior or even mid level how do we define 'passable'? I've already run into a few cases where a jr/mid is doing 'passable' MVPs that, again, hit that 'uncanny valley' where subtle stuff is broken in an important way but it's hard to detect. > 3) there are unlikeable billionaires making money now where there weren't before. IDK 'Eyeball scans' are a bit much for me. That said, this completely hand-waves over the knock-on effects. All of the 'hype' generated about this, all the resulting Gartner reports, every organization latching on to the concept the same way I once was asked if I had any thoughts on how to integrate 'blockchain' into an enterprise that literally had no reason to short of attracting investment. The problem this time, is they have something 'closer' to a product. And we are seeing the result of that product more and more. - Layoffs - People having to deal with impacts of layoffs in their org and surprise surprise, the AI tools didn't replace the lost heads well enough. - Consumers dealing with the pain of these tools being applied. For example, my insurance provider shortened their online chat staff in lieu of an 'AI bot' that couldn't help me connect to one of the few humans left when all I was trying to do was add my wife to my auto policy. Or my bank that randomly decided one morning that spending <5$ for eggs and bacon was enough to hard-lock my card without even a text prompt -and- invalidate my password so that I had to call in to their line. (The eggs and bacon were purchased at my work's cafeteria, which I had previously purchased from.) - People sick of AI 'spam' that shows that uncanny valley. e.x. for ungodly reasons I sometimes see clickbait about cars and take it. And then they get very obvious facts completely wrong, that any human being actually writing the article, would have at least checked Wikipedia first for how many years it was produced... - People sick of getting work from colleagues/superiors where it's obvious an AI generated it and they didn't take the time to make sure it was right. Or maybe they did and it was below their skill, because again, that uncanny valley is a good bullshit generator. I've seen plenty of 'procedure documents' and 'technical requirements' that were obviously AI generated, yet actually catching the -subtlety- of the (still very important!) errors was difficult due to it's capabilities. The problem of course, is it's now someone -else's- problem to make sense of it, and frankly it's a proof of brandolini's law.
danielmarkbruce 2y ago
I look at source code and learn, and then sell my services for money. It's a very valid argument.
- dgfitz 2y ago
  Uh, no. Did you read what I said? Hell, did you read what you said? This response makes no sense whatsoever.
  - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
    I'm basically an LLM. I trained in a similar way as the LLM, off of books and open source code, guessing what comes next, making errors, adjusting my brain. I make money the same way as the LLM, off of inference calls. Maybe you don't truly understand how an LLM works, or is trained, or how inference works. Or how humans work. Money goes out during training, money comes in during inference.
    - dgfitz 2y ago
      I understand how they work. If you’re going to make bad-faith arguments, we can drop it here.
      - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
        Pointing out you are wrong isn't bad faith. Several people have noted in this thread that you've missed a pretty simple fact.
        dgfitz 2y ago
        You claimed you’re “basically an LLM” so at this point it seems accurate. You’re mostly incorrect and spouting nonsense, nailed it!
        danielmarkbruce 2y ago

by dgfitz 2y ago

threatofrain 2y ago

Learning without making money does not shield you from copyright violation, otherwise public school teachers would just start saving money by copying whole texts. We don’t live in a society where it’s okay for an 8 year old to say “but I’m just trying to learn, I’m not a business!” And making new music which is a synthesis of your life experience with copyrighted music does not mean copyright violation, regardless if you’re making money or compensating all the authors who’ve inspired you.

pc86 2y ago
> We don’t live in a society where it’s okay for an 8 year old to say “but I’m just trying to learn, I’m not a business!” I mean we absolutely do if you're an 8 year old. Except in the most NIMBY HOA-driven areas of the culture nobody expects a kid setting up a lemonade stand to get a business license or submit to health code inspections.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
darby_nine 2y ago
> otherwise public school teachers would just start saving money by copying whole texts This is literally a thing today. It may be illegal but the idea of prosecuting this is insane.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

pc86 2y ago

In this example a person is looking at code they can't legally copy, learning from it, and re-implementing the same functionality. Someone's definitely making money off of that. That person, that person's employer, clients and vendors, lots of people. People get upset about AI because 1) the scale is much bigger because no human can read and generally remember all the code on GitHub while a sufficiently large model can, 2) it's a lot easier to prompt an AI into giving you a passable MVP than it is to code one from scratch, ESPECIALLY as a junior or even mid level, 3) there are unlikeable billionaires making money now where there weren't before.

aeonik 2y ago
I thought patents protected functionally, not copyright.
- pc86 2y ago
  Who is talking about patents?
  - aeonik 2y ago
    In this example a person is looking at code they can't legally copy, learning from it, and re-implementing the same functionality. I thought this is what patents protected, not copyright.
to11mtm 2y ago
> 1) the scale is much bigger because no human can read and generally remember all the code on GitHub while a sufficiently large model can, Semi-True but it often hits an uncanny valley of either leaving enough comments in to know it was copied, or missing enough context that I'd rather the thing give me actual permalinks to whatever it thinks is relevant (i.e. like a search engine but better.) > 2) it's a lot easier to prompt an AI into giving you a passable MVP than it is to code one from scratch, ESPECIALLY as a junior or even mid level how do we define 'passable'? I've already run into a few cases where a jr/mid is doing 'passable' MVPs that, again, hit that 'uncanny valley' where subtle stuff is broken in an important way but it's hard to detect. > 3) there are unlikeable billionaires making money now where there weren't before. IDK 'Eyeball scans' are a bit much for me. That said, this completely hand-waves over the knock-on effects. All of the 'hype' generated about this, all the resulting Gartner reports, every organization latching on to the concept the same way I once was asked if I had any thoughts on how to integrate 'blockchain' into an enterprise that literally had no reason to short of attracting investment. The problem this time, is they have something 'closer' to a product. And we are seeing the result of that product more and more. - Layoffs - People having to deal with impacts of layoffs in their org and surprise surprise, the AI tools didn't replace the lost heads well enough. - Consumers dealing with the pain of these tools being applied. For example, my insurance provider shortened their online chat staff in lieu of an 'AI bot' that couldn't help me connect to one of the few humans left when all I was trying to do was add my wife to my auto policy. Or my bank that randomly decided one morning that spending <5$ for eggs and bacon was enough to hard-lock my card without even a text prompt -and- invalidate my password so that I had to call in to their line. (The eggs and bacon were purchased at my work's cafeteria, which I had previously purchased from.) - People sick of AI 'spam' that shows that uncanny valley. e.x. for ungodly reasons I sometimes see clickbait about cars and take it. And then they get very obvious facts completely wrong, that any human being actually writing the article, would have at least checked Wikipedia first for how many years it was produced... - People sick of getting work from colleagues/superiors where it's obvious an AI generated it and they didn't take the time to make sure it was right. Or maybe they did and it was below their skill, because again, that uncanny valley is a good bullshit generator. I've seen plenty of 'procedure documents' and 'technical requirements' that were obviously AI generated, yet actually catching the -subtlety- of the (still very important!) errors was difficult due to it's capabilities. The problem of course, is it's now someone -else's- problem to make sense of it, and frankly it's a proof of brandolini's law.

danielmarkbruce 2y ago

I look at source code and learn, and then sell my services for money. It's a very valid argument.

dgfitz 2y ago
Uh, no. Did you read what I said? Hell, did you read what you said? This response makes no sense whatsoever.
- danielmarkbruce 2y ago
  I'm basically an LLM. I trained in a similar way as the LLM, off of books and open source code, guessing what comes next, making errors, adjusting my brain. I make money the same way as the LLM, off of inference calls. Maybe you don't truly understand how an LLM works, or is trained, or how inference works. Or how humans work. Money goes out during training, money comes in during inference.
  - dgfitz 2y ago
    I understand how they work. If you’re going to make bad-faith arguments, we can drop it here.
    - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
      Pointing out you are wrong isn't bad faith. Several people have noted in this thread that you've missed a pretty simple fact.
      - dgfitz 2y ago
        You claimed you’re “basically an LLM” so at this point it seems accurate. You’re mostly incorrect and spouting nonsense, nailed it!
        danielmarkbruce 2y ago