4 ms·

What do you mean, it's already robbing me of the ability to discuss techniques with a number of my peers since they decided the mediocre output of LLMs is good

What do you mean, it's already robbing me of the ability to discuss techniques with a number of my peers since they decided the mediocre output of LLMs is good enough instead of understanding what they are doing. In addition, a great number of people have decided to stop publishing their code publicly, and discuss techniques except in spaces they can be sure it's a one-on-one with a human being. Some things already got lost.

phoronixrly 10d ago
I still do open-source. You just get the code on a CD like the good old times!
IAmBroom 10d ago
You're discussing your peers' behaviors, not AI. It's the same as saying "People don't kill people; guns do." Maybe guns(AI) should be regulated, but the primary problem is murderers(lazy peers), not weapons(AI).
- malfist 10d ago
  Just like with guns, AI is a crime of scope. I can be a murderer with a knife, sure, but how many people can I kill? How many people can I kill if I have a class three license an a full auto gun? I can pirate a news article here or there, sure, but how many news articles can I pirate? How many news articles can I pirate with AI?
  - TeMPOraL 10d ago
    > How many news articles can I pirate with AI? Not much more than with a bash/curl loop. Which, on one hand, AI can write for you, but on the other hand, AI will make you no longer need to pirate those articles in the first place. Also it's not end-user piracy being discussed - it's the act of training AI itself that's accused here to be "robbery of our culture".
- ndsipa_pomu 10d ago
  Yet countries that have strong regulation of firearms have significantly less murders (and accidental shootings) than countries that don't regulate them. That does suggest that along with murderers, the easy accessibility of firearms is a problem (assuming that the ratio of murderers in different populations is approximately the same).
- FromTheFirstIn 10d ago
  If this is your stance on guns, I’m not surprised by your calloused take on AI
TeMPOraL 10d ago
That's people problems though, namely: 1) Lazy peers, and 2) Spiteful peers with "dog in the manger" mentality. The latter case personally irks me, mostly because this often involves personal benefit (economical or moral) due to them claiming to give away knowledge for altruistic reasons, which later behavior reveals was a lie, mislabeling proprietary as open and free, to reap unfair gains. But that's all off-topic for this thread anyway.
- gwbas1c 10d ago
  > Spiteful peers with "dog in the manger" mentality. Last night my daughter told me her friend (a boy) signed up to take the last spot of a baking class at camp just to spite his sister, who wanted it. Turns out he liked baking! --- I think this whole discussion shows that there's a lot of Calvinball going on with IP, where the creator keeps trying to change the rules as a way to defend their power and social order.
  - 3ash87 10d ago
    Why don't you create something so that you, too, can join the evil class of creators that exploit OpenAI, Anthropic and SpaceX?
    - shimman 10d ago
      This may blow your mind but people have different value systems than the single one where only making money matters in our incredibly short lives. Some people believe in things other than accumulating money and immiserating workers. Your failure of imagination doesn't limit the actions people can take to shape society. We all have equal voices in that respect. I truly feel sorry for those with your mindset. It speaks volumes on the lack of community and friends you have where you think fucking them over to make money is a worthy pursuit. They use to banish greedy people from society in the before times, maybe we should start again as these people have no problem in destroying society for religious fanatical reasons. We shouldn't be accepting of them, especially when they're actively killing us all or making us miserable.
nradov 10d ago
The majority of code has always been proprietary and never published. But there's also more open source code being published than ever before.
6510 10d ago
> a great number of people have decided to stop publishing their code publicly Stopped publishing anything and stopped creating anything. But in all fairness this started long ago. I remember a conversation where I asked someone who read a niche blog every day why he never posted a comment. (the blog had zero comments) If you like what they wrote and have thoughts about it, why not "honor" them with a few words? How is that to much to ask? They clearly just never bothered to but in stead made up all kinds of excuses. Imagine having to explain that you can respond if someone talks to you? If there was a culture surely it ended there?
burningChrome 10d ago
>> In addition, a great number of people have decided to stop publishing their code publicly, A lot of my peers who have been in tech for more than a decade are all doing this. They're effectively backing out of the industry. Their attitude now is they're ready for retirement in their 40's. They're only building and working on side projects and only sharing with people they know, nobody else. One thing I'm seeing right now is the amount of institutional and domain knowledge being lost is a on a massive scale. The more startling fact is nobody seems to care - as if vibe coding and LLM's are going to fill this gap.
- rpdillon 10d ago
  It's interesting to me that the actual motivations for releasing code open-source were very different than I had assumed for the past ~30 years. I always liked to give stuff away so folks could play with and try stuff. As far as I can tell, the only reason not to still give away code is the desire for credit, which was never all that interesting to me. But then again, I haven't devoted my life to developing and releasing a huge open source project used by millions, so perhaps my opinion should be discounted accordingly.
  - TeMPOraL 10d ago
    No, I don't think your opinion should be discounted. It just turns out that a bulk of open-source movement had ulterior motives, and were actually in this for credit or downstream opportunities, not to actually give things away in a pay-it-forward fashion. The reaction to LLMs pretty clearly revealed who was giving things away, and who was indirectly selling them and using "giving away" for unfair advantage.
    - tripzilch 9d ago
      Wow you're really "irked" by the existence of people writing software for reasons you apparently cannot comprehend, aren't you? BTW, you mentioned "pay it forward" -- please explain me how an LLM user no longer interacting with other humans, is going to "pay it forward". I dunno what "irks" you, what's your problem, who mistreated you so badly that you have to be so condescending and attributing malice to people whose motivations you have absolutely no clue about.

phoronixrly 10d ago

I still do open-source. You just get the code on a CD like the good old times!

IAmBroom 10d ago

You're discussing your peers' behaviors, not AI. It's the same as saying "People don't kill people; guns do." Maybe guns(AI) should be regulated, but the primary problem is murderers(lazy peers), not weapons(AI).

malfist 10d ago
Just like with guns, AI is a crime of scope. I can be a murderer with a knife, sure, but how many people can I kill? How many people can I kill if I have a class three license an a full auto gun? I can pirate a news article here or there, sure, but how many news articles can I pirate? How many news articles can I pirate with AI?
- TeMPOraL 10d ago
  > How many news articles can I pirate with AI? Not much more than with a bash/curl loop. Which, on one hand, AI can write for you, but on the other hand, AI will make you no longer need to pirate those articles in the first place. Also it's not end-user piracy being discussed - it's the act of training AI itself that's accused here to be "robbery of our culture".
ndsipa_pomu 10d ago
Yet countries that have strong regulation of firearms have significantly less murders (and accidental shootings) than countries that don't regulate them. That does suggest that along with murderers, the easy accessibility of firearms is a problem (assuming that the ratio of murderers in different populations is approximately the same).
FromTheFirstIn 10d ago
If this is your stance on guns, I’m not surprised by your calloused take on AI

TeMPOraL 10d ago

That's people problems though, namely: 1) Lazy peers, and 2) Spiteful peers with "dog in the manger" mentality. The latter case personally irks me, mostly because this often involves personal benefit (economical or moral) due to them claiming to give away knowledge for altruistic reasons, which later behavior reveals was a lie, mislabeling proprietary as open and free, to reap unfair gains. But that's all off-topic for this thread anyway.

gwbas1c 10d ago
> Spiteful peers with "dog in the manger" mentality. Last night my daughter told me her friend (a boy) signed up to take the last spot of a baking class at camp just to spite his sister, who wanted it. Turns out he liked baking! --- I think this whole discussion shows that there's a lot of Calvinball going on with IP, where the creator keeps trying to change the rules as a way to defend their power and social order.
- 3ash87 10d ago
  Why don't you create something so that you, too, can join the evil class of creators that exploit OpenAI, Anthropic and SpaceX?
  - shimman 10d ago
    This may blow your mind but people have different value systems than the single one where only making money matters in our incredibly short lives. Some people believe in things other than accumulating money and immiserating workers. Your failure of imagination doesn't limit the actions people can take to shape society. We all have equal voices in that respect. I truly feel sorry for those with your mindset. It speaks volumes on the lack of community and friends you have where you think fucking them over to make money is a worthy pursuit. They use to banish greedy people from society in the before times, maybe we should start again as these people have no problem in destroying society for religious fanatical reasons. We shouldn't be accepting of them, especially when they're actively killing us all or making us miserable.

nradov 10d ago

The majority of code has always been proprietary and never published. But there's also more open source code being published than ever before.

6510 10d ago

> a great number of people have decided to stop publishing their code publicly Stopped publishing anything and stopped creating anything. But in all fairness this started long ago. I remember a conversation where I asked someone who read a niche blog every day why he never posted a comment. (the blog had zero comments) If you like what they wrote and have thoughts about it, why not "honor" them with a few words? How is that to much to ask? They clearly just never bothered to but in stead made up all kinds of excuses. Imagine having to explain that you can respond if someone talks to you? If there was a culture surely it ended there?

burningChrome 10d ago

>> In addition, a great number of people have decided to stop publishing their code publicly, A lot of my peers who have been in tech for more than a decade are all doing this. They're effectively backing out of the industry. Their attitude now is they're ready for retirement in their 40's. They're only building and working on side projects and only sharing with people they know, nobody else. One thing I'm seeing right now is the amount of institutional and domain knowledge being lost is a on a massive scale. The more startling fact is nobody seems to care - as if vibe coding and LLM's are going to fill this gap.

rpdillon 10d ago
It's interesting to me that the actual motivations for releasing code open-source were very different than I had assumed for the past ~30 years. I always liked to give stuff away so folks could play with and try stuff. As far as I can tell, the only reason not to still give away code is the desire for credit, which was never all that interesting to me. But then again, I haven't devoted my life to developing and releasing a huge open source project used by millions, so perhaps my opinion should be discounted accordingly.
- TeMPOraL 10d ago
  No, I don't think your opinion should be discounted. It just turns out that a bulk of open-source movement had ulterior motives, and were actually in this for credit or downstream opportunities, not to actually give things away in a pay-it-forward fashion. The reaction to LLMs pretty clearly revealed who was giving things away, and who was indirectly selling them and using "giving away" for unfair advantage.
  - tripzilch 9d ago
    Wow you're really "irked" by the existence of people writing software for reasons you apparently cannot comprehend, aren't you? BTW, you mentioned "pay it forward" -- please explain me how an LLM user no longer interacting with other humans, is going to "pay it forward". I dunno what "irks" you, what's your problem, who mistreated you so badly that you have to be so condescending and attributing malice to people whose motivations you have absolutely no clue about.