4 ms·

Because some people just don't care where their code ends up. Many people release code to the "public domain" (or under very liberal licenses). If those never

Because some people just don't care where their code ends up. Many people release code to the "public domain" (or under very liberal licenses). If those never cared if corporate entity™ used it in proprietary software, why should they care if LLM chews on it and regurgitates it out? Also, it's far worse if entitled user® posts abusive issues to my repo, than if they copy snippets of my code through a LLM and are forced to support their inferior spitballed copy all by themselves.

csdvrx 2y ago
> Because some people just don't care where their code ends up. Yes, take me for example. > Many people release code to the "public domain" (or under very liberal licenses). In my case, the MIT license, because I saw it was popular, and I was afraid that in some places, "public domain" might cause unexpected legal issues to whoever wants to "play by the book" and use my code. > if LLM chews on it and regurgitates it out As work coming from a machine does not have copyright protection, whoever gets a LLM to spit out my code back can then claim it as their own, under whatever term they like. If this person wants to contribute to a free software project and release the code under the GPL v2 or v3, good: it may help create a new feature that users will enjoy! If this person wants to contribute to their company private software that's only available on a subscription basis (and let's say the subscription is sold at an eye-watering price), good: it means whoever pay this subscription will get more from their money, and whoever use the software may get a new feature they will enjoy! Software has nearly 0 marginal costs. LLM is the closest thing to a Star-Trek level "replicator", getting everyone everything they want. On which moral grounds would you object to a Star-Trek level replicator for physical good? (please make them good, as offering any food anyone may want would fix world hunger once and for all) Then why object to that for virtual goods? Maybe I'm reading too much into your reply, but I don't see it as trolling or negative faith. I see variants of it in many places, and they all look to me very close to luddism: rejecting a new technology, because you fear for your own work, while ignoring what this technology will enable in the greater picture: for the orignal case of luddism, reducing the price of clothing for everyone by increasing production and decreasing labor, therefore allowing workers to get in other fields where they may try to satisfy other human wants - some that would be inconcievable to the original luddites like videogames We should feel graceful we get more technology, as it removes constraints and make more people happy.
- hnlmorg 2y ago
  I don’t think fearing one’s job is necessarily a bad reason because as much as I love the idea of a Star Trek utopia, real and present people have real responsibilities like children which are cared for from money generated by their careers. This is particularly relevant in societies which take a dim view of their social responsibilities (I’m looking at you America) which means there’s less of a safety net should that career disappear. We are already seeing more developers than job vacancies is the tech market, so this isn’t a theoretical concern either. That all said, I don’t think hiding our valuable code for fear of LLMs is the right solution either. If your code is really that good then you’ll be more likely to secure your career by sharing your code because it builds a visible reputation that extends further than any verbiage on a CV might. So while I don’t agree with the LLM excuse I can still completely understand why someone might cite it as a reason not to open their source. Another valid reason is that some people have been completely burnt out deadline with entitled complaints from users. Thankfully I’ve had a mostly positive experience personally but I’ve read that others haven’t been so fortunate.
  - csdvrx 2y ago
    > I’m looking at you America And I'm looking back at you from America :) > We are already seeing more developers than job vacancies is the tech market, so this isn’t a theoretical concern either. Agriculture also employs far fewer people than a few hundred years ago, yet we have more food in quantity and diversity, so I see that as a good thing. I suppose we just have very different beliefs and values. Thanks for your answer, as it helped me understand your perspective.
    - hnlmorg 2y ago
      I think you’ve misread my comment. I’m neither the GP nor against LLMs. I’m just offering a counterpoint that a fear for one’s job isn’t an unreasonable perspective.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  > On which moral grounds would you object to a Star-Trek level replicator for physical good? Then why object to that for virtual goods? This just made me realize a distressing thing - if we ever built a replicator, a lot of people might then want to destroy it. For the same reason I believe they object to LLMs - greed and entitlement. Because they don't get to benefit personally, they don't get first right to refuse, the instinct is to deny the value to others. The Dog in the Manger.

csdvrx 2y ago

> Because some people just don't care where their code ends up. Yes, take me for example. > Many people release code to the "public domain" (or under very liberal licenses). In my case, the MIT license, because I saw it was popular, and I was afraid that in some places, "public domain" might cause unexpected legal issues to whoever wants to "play by the book" and use my code. > if LLM chews on it and regurgitates it out As work coming from a machine does not have copyright protection, whoever gets a LLM to spit out my code back can then claim it as their own, under whatever term they like. If this person wants to contribute to a free software project and release the code under the GPL v2 or v3, good: it may help create a new feature that users will enjoy! If this person wants to contribute to their company private software that's only available on a subscription basis (and let's say the subscription is sold at an eye-watering price), good: it means whoever pay this subscription will get more from their money, and whoever use the software may get a new feature they will enjoy! Software has nearly 0 marginal costs. LLM is the closest thing to a Star-Trek level "replicator", getting everyone everything they want. On which moral grounds would you object to a Star-Trek level replicator for physical good? (please make them good, as offering any food anyone may want would fix world hunger once and for all) Then why object to that for virtual goods? Maybe I'm reading too much into your reply, but I don't see it as trolling or negative faith. I see variants of it in many places, and they all look to me very close to luddism: rejecting a new technology, because you fear for your own work, while ignoring what this technology will enable in the greater picture: for the orignal case of luddism, reducing the price of clothing for everyone by increasing production and decreasing labor, therefore allowing workers to get in other fields where they may try to satisfy other human wants - some that would be inconcievable to the original luddites like videogames We should feel graceful we get more technology, as it removes constraints and make more people happy.

hnlmorg 2y ago
I don’t think fearing one’s job is necessarily a bad reason because as much as I love the idea of a Star Trek utopia, real and present people have real responsibilities like children which are cared for from money generated by their careers. This is particularly relevant in societies which take a dim view of their social responsibilities (I’m looking at you America) which means there’s less of a safety net should that career disappear. We are already seeing more developers than job vacancies is the tech market, so this isn’t a theoretical concern either. That all said, I don’t think hiding our valuable code for fear of LLMs is the right solution either. If your code is really that good then you’ll be more likely to secure your career by sharing your code because it builds a visible reputation that extends further than any verbiage on a CV might. So while I don’t agree with the LLM excuse I can still completely understand why someone might cite it as a reason not to open their source. Another valid reason is that some people have been completely burnt out deadline with entitled complaints from users. Thankfully I’ve had a mostly positive experience personally but I’ve read that others haven’t been so fortunate.
- csdvrx 2y ago
  > I’m looking at you America And I'm looking back at you from America :) > We are already seeing more developers than job vacancies is the tech market, so this isn’t a theoretical concern either. Agriculture also employs far fewer people than a few hundred years ago, yet we have more food in quantity and diversity, so I see that as a good thing. I suppose we just have very different beliefs and values. Thanks for your answer, as it helped me understand your perspective.
  - hnlmorg 2y ago
    I think you’ve misread my comment. I’m neither the GP nor against LLMs. I’m just offering a counterpoint that a fear for one’s job isn’t an unreasonable perspective.
TeMPOraL 2y ago
> On which moral grounds would you object to a Star-Trek level replicator for physical good? Then why object to that for virtual goods? This just made me realize a distressing thing - if we ever built a replicator, a lot of people might then want to destroy it. For the same reason I believe they object to LLMs - greed and entitlement. Because they don't get to benefit personally, they don't get first right to refuse, the instinct is to deny the value to others. The Dog in the Manger.