4 ms·

Shout out to Broadwayscore by thomaspryor@github At 2mo old - nearly a 1GB repo, 24M loc, 52K commits https://github.com/thomaspryor/Broadwayscore https://git

by ramoz 7mo ago

Shout out to Broadwayscore by thomaspryor@github At 2mo old - nearly a 1GB repo, 24M loc, 52K commits https://github.com/thomaspryor/Broadwayscore https://github.com/thomaspryor/Broadwayscore Polished site:https://broadwayscorecard.com/ https://broadwayscorecard.com/

mjr00 7mo ago
I was really confused how this could be possible for such a seemingly simple site but it looks like it's storing + writing many new commits every time there's a new review, or new financial data, or a new show, etc. Someone might want to tell the author to ask Claude what a database is typically used for...
- a-dub 7mo ago
  json in git for reference data actually isn't terrible. having it with the code isn't great, and the repo is massively bloated in other ways, but for change tracking a source of truth, not bad except for maybe it should be canonicalized.
  - wrqvrwvq 7mo ago
    It's not a terrible storage mechanism but 36,625 workflow runs taking between ~1-12 minutes seems like a terrible use of runner resources. Even at many orgs, constantly actions running for very little benefit has been a challenge. Whether it's wasted dev time or wasted cpu, to say nothing of the horrible security environment that global arbitrary pr action triggers introduce, there's something wrong with Actions as a product.
- sanex 7mo ago
  It is pretty damn fast though.
- kevmo314 7mo ago
  What is git if not a database for source code?
  - brookst 7mo ago
    Meh, then filesystems are databases for bytes. Airplanes are buses for flying. I could make that argument, but I wouldn’t believe it.
    - kevmo314 7mo ago
      Both of those statements are true.
heavyset_go 7mo ago
Lol @ the proprietary license, you can just copy and use whatever Claude-committed code you want to from that repository.
- fluidcruft 7mo ago
  Can you? My understanding is that AI cannot claim copyright and my assumption would be that copyright law immediately extends authorship to the user operating the AI (or their employer).
  - heavyset_go 7mo ago
    AI output can't be copyrighted, copyright applies to human creations. Substantive transformation of AI output via human creativity can be copyrighted, but if you're sticking to Claude commits, that's AI output.
    - fluidcruft 7mo ago
      So you're suggesting that an AI translation of, say, a novel removes human authorship from the result? Unless a human goes in and makes further "substantive transformations" to the AI generated work? And if that's not what you are saying then how are you determining that prompts to and AI are not copyrighted by the author of the prompt? The results are nothing more than a derivative work of the prompt. So you are faced with having to determine whether the prompts themselves or in combination are copyrightable. Depending on the prompt they may or may not be, but you can't apply a blanket rule here. (Notwithstanding that Claude inserts itself explicitly as co-author and the author is listed on the commit as well)
      - heavyset_go 7mo ago
        https://newsroom.loc.gov/news/copyright-office-releases-part-2-of-artificial-intelligence-report/s/f3959c36-d616-498d-b8f9-67641fd18bab https://newsroom.loc.gov/news/copyright-office-releases-part... > The Copyright Office affirms that existing principles of copyright law are flexible enough to apply to this new technology, as they have applied to technological innovations in the past. It concludes that the outputs of generative AI can be protected by copyright only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements. This can include situations where a human-authored work is perceptible in an AI output, or a human makes creative arrangements or modifications of the output, but not the mere provision of prompts. People have tried over and over again to register copyright of AI output they supplied the prompts for, for example, in one instance[1], someone prompted AI with over 600+ cumulative iterations of prompting to arrive at the final product, and it wasn't accepted by the Copyright Office. [1] https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/Theatre-Dopera-Spatial.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/...
g947o 7mo ago
“A fully staged “Sweeney Todd” opened Sunday at Broadway’s Lunt.” That's the kind of "highlight" from a review when you use AI to extract/summarize content instead of asking a real human editor to do the job.

by ramoz 7mo ago

mjr00 7mo ago

I was really confused how this could be possible for such a seemingly simple site but it looks like it's storing + writing many new commits every time there's a new review, or new financial data, or a new show, etc. Someone might want to tell the author to ask Claude what a database is typically used for...

a-dub 7mo ago
json in git for reference data actually isn't terrible. having it with the code isn't great, and the repo is massively bloated in other ways, but for change tracking a source of truth, not bad except for maybe it should be canonicalized.
- wrqvrwvq 7mo ago
  It's not a terrible storage mechanism but 36,625 workflow runs taking between ~1-12 minutes seems like a terrible use of runner resources. Even at many orgs, constantly actions running for very little benefit has been a challenge. Whether it's wasted dev time or wasted cpu, to say nothing of the horrible security environment that global arbitrary pr action triggers introduce, there's something wrong with Actions as a product.
sanex 7mo ago
It is pretty damn fast though.
kevmo314 7mo ago
What is git if not a database for source code?
- brookst 7mo ago
  Meh, then filesystems are databases for bytes. Airplanes are buses for flying. I could make that argument, but I wouldn’t believe it.
  - kevmo314 7mo ago
    Both of those statements are true.

heavyset_go 7mo ago

Lol @ the proprietary license, you can just copy and use whatever Claude-committed code you want to from that repository.

fluidcruft 7mo ago
Can you? My understanding is that AI cannot claim copyright and my assumption would be that copyright law immediately extends authorship to the user operating the AI (or their employer).
- heavyset_go 7mo ago
  AI output can't be copyrighted, copyright applies to human creations. Substantive transformation of AI output via human creativity can be copyrighted, but if you're sticking to Claude commits, that's AI output.
  - fluidcruft 7mo ago
    So you're suggesting that an AI translation of, say, a novel removes human authorship from the result? Unless a human goes in and makes further "substantive transformations" to the AI generated work? And if that's not what you are saying then how are you determining that prompts to and AI are not copyrighted by the author of the prompt? The results are nothing more than a derivative work of the prompt. So you are faced with having to determine whether the prompts themselves or in combination are copyrightable. Depending on the prompt they may or may not be, but you can't apply a blanket rule here. (Notwithstanding that Claude inserts itself explicitly as co-author and the author is listed on the commit as well)
    - heavyset_go 7mo ago
      https://newsroom.loc.gov/news/copyright-office-releases-part-2-of-artificial-intelligence-report/s/f3959c36-d616-498d-b8f9-67641fd18bab https://newsroom.loc.gov/news/copyright-office-releases-part... > The Copyright Office affirms that existing principles of copyright law are flexible enough to apply to this new technology, as they have applied to technological innovations in the past. It concludes that the outputs of generative AI can be protected by copyright only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements. This can include situations where a human-authored work is perceptible in an AI output, or a human makes creative arrangements or modifications of the output, but not the mere provision of prompts. People have tried over and over again to register copyright of AI output they supplied the prompts for, for example, in one instance[1], someone prompted AI with over 600+ cumulative iterations of prompting to arrive at the final product, and it wasn't accepted by the Copyright Office. [1] https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/Theatre-Dopera-Spatial.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/...

g947o 7mo ago

“A fully staged “Sweeney Todd” opened Sunday at Broadway’s Lunt.” That's the kind of "highlight" from a review when you use AI to extract/summarize content instead of asking a real human editor to do the job.