joshka

8 ms·

91.
by joshka 4mo ago
Pattern language sites / books have existed for years. The right approach is more work out what shared patterns are, make sure a bunch of reasonable ones are post trained into the models so that it's easy to refer to them by name
92.
by joshka 4mo ago
Yuck. Use jj for this instead of a custom thing.
93.
by joshka 4mo ago
Yeah, I probably don’t mean fraud in the narrow criminal sense. The thing that feels fraud-ish to me is that the loss doesn’t just disappear because nobody books it. A huge amount of capital and useful urban land is tied up preserving a fic
94.
by joshka 4mo ago
Just show me a screenshot please
95.
by joshka 4mo ago
It's only pressure if you believe the social contract in a PR is that everything that is written is something you're obligated to read / respond to. If you flip that a bit to a PR being the first step in a way of saying &quot
96.
by joshka 4mo ago
Sounds like fraud with extra steps.
97.
by joshka 4mo ago
The counterpoint is that building software is not building a fence. When you create something in software, nothing tangible changes until that's accepted and running on all the places that you deploy to. A PR is just a hey, here's
98.
Hex1bThe .NET Terminal Application Stack(hex1b.dev)
2 points by joshka 4mo ago|0 comments
99.
by joshka 4mo ago
Automated process run into race conditions more often due to their frequency. Humans can do that too, but are less likely to in practice both due to lower frequency and because they carry more awareness of global context that isn't cap
100.
by joshka 4mo ago
I agree with the core maintainer complaint here: PR slop is bad, and maintainers should not be forced into reviewing code the submitter does not understand. But I think the answer is not “don’t slop me, all you sloppers.” The better answer
101.
by joshka 4mo ago
This seems like a pretty classic attribution error to me. The screenshot is funny, and obviously the block is absurd, but the leap from “a safety classifier or routing layer misfired” to “Anthropic is leaning into the nanny state thing” fee
102.
by joshka 4mo ago
But calling them out in a partisan may disincentivize half of the people to understand the issue.
103.
by joshka 4mo ago
Same - I plugged it into ChatGPT to check if I'd missed something contentful. I hadn't really. Not news, more survey of things that matter a bit. If you know those things already then this is just fluff. Nothing about the future,
104.
by joshka 4mo ago
A couple of things to consider: Start with a set of work that's well specified and reasonably chunked to sizes that make it so that the review parts fit in the gaps of the working chunk and interleave (1-4 tasks of this). While the age
105.
by joshka 4mo ago
Please feel free to strongman. Extend the argument until it hits a point of non-triviality and then apply reasoning.
106.
by joshka 4mo ago
You've read books and they are in your brains corpus. You only infringe copyright if you reproduce the same actual words from the books in your memory (and then do infringing acts defined by copyright laws with that output). Here that&
107.
by joshka 4mo ago
> There is no other behavioral description that would reproduce all needed functionality. Tests often are exactly the information necessary to understand exactly what the output should be. See https://github.com/git/
108.
by joshka 4mo ago
Repetition isn't really a factor in deciding whether something is infringing or not - check the copyright law in your jurisdiction. Here if you look specifically at what an LLM's sampling stage is doing, it's choosing non inf
109.
by joshka 4mo ago
I'd challenge you here to think about this in terms of the legal aspects rather than reaching specifically for similarities as similar is often meaningless in the law or contracts when specific acts are codified rather than generalized
110.
by joshka 4mo ago
> [US jurisdiction]: Anything in the result written by the LLM can not be copyright by anyone. This is a bit stronger than the actual report where this has been discussed finds. See part 2 in https://www.copyright.gov/ai&
111.
by joshka 4mo ago
You're recalling it right, but there's a nice quote from Judge Alsup in that case that talks about this exact situation: > “So long as the specific code used to implement a method is different, anyone is free under the Copyrigh
112.
by joshka 4mo ago
> test_sum is assumedly relatively trivial. So as a lay person I’d expect some sort of obviousness test to apply. Like so much of the stuff in the Google/Oracle lawsuit. Feel free to extrapolate to the threshold where it's not
113.
by joshka 4mo ago
By definition a test suite is about testing interoperability with the test suite. An HTTP test suite should likely test for whether response code 418 is implemented a particular way and while humorous it would still be an interop test no?
114.
by joshka 4mo ago
> Doesn't infringe upon copyright period, because there's no creative element in that work. There's likely a threshold at some point. It's helpful to look at a minima and then continue from there though. I'm cur
115.
by joshka 4mo ago
This is the exact thing I'm not sure about. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48470397 where I posit a simpler question: if a `test_sum()` function is copyrighted, does writing a `sum(a, b)` function infringe on
116.
by joshka 4mo ago
It's actually murkier than I suggest here. https://github.com/gitbutlerapp/grit/blob/main/AGENTS.md#sou...
117.
by joshka 4mo ago
> That's not actually the case at hand here - the agents were given the original source to reference: https://github.com/gitbutlerapp/grit/blob/main/AGENTS.md#sou ... yeah fair - the "The can
118.
by joshka 4mo ago
Fair point on medium - this was a lazy example. Substitutibility probably doesn't apply here in the way you're implying and if it did it would likely be hampered by the 9th circuits findings about transformation in sony v connecti
119.
by joshka 4mo ago
What makes you think that's what the article says that it did? There's a lot of specific nuance and it doesn't say that anywhere. In fact it speaks of making a test suite pass only. This is the classic cleanroom bios from spe
120.
by joshka 4mo ago
There's no evidence that "here's a thing, rewrite it in Rust" is the technique Scott used here. "here's a test suite, write code in rust that makes that suite pass" is reasonably supported by the article.

More ›