martin-t

8 ms·

61.
by martin-t 6mo ago
Nice, -4 points, somebody, many somebodies in fact, took that personally and yet were unable to express where they disagree in a comment. Look, if you think I am wrong, you can surely put it into words. OTOH, if you don't think I am
62.
by martin-t 6mo ago
The point wasn't about the number of people, the point was a company which employs that number of people has enough money which can be converted to leverage against you. Besides that, your whole arguments hinges on large companies bein
63.
by martin-t 6mo ago
Have you ever seen what obfuscation looks like when somebody puts the effort in? Not to mention companies will try to mandate hardware decryption keys so the binary is encrypted and your AI never even gets to analyze the code which actually
64.
by martin-t 6mo ago
Exactly. AI proponents completely ignore the disparity of resources available to an individual and a corporation. If I and a company of 1000 people create the same product and compete for customers, the company's version will win. Ever
65.
by martin-t 6mo ago
I cannot take seriously any politician or layer using the words "artificial intelligence", especially to models from 2023. These people have never used LLMs to write code. They'd know even current models need constant babysit
66.
by martin-t 6mo ago
I don't think modified by a human is enough. If you take licensed text (code or otherwise) and manually replace every word with a synonym, it does not remove the license. If you manually change every loop into a map/filter, it doe
67.
by martin-t 6mo ago
Sorry, meant to say hydrogen
68.
by martin-t 6mo ago
I wouldn't but I can see why some people would. I can't point out where I draw the line clearly but here's one different I notice: A recommendation can be both a thing and an action. A piece of text is a recommendation and it
69.
by martin-t 6mo ago
> The Moral Bottomline: if you didn't have to eat, would you care about who copies your work as long as you get credited? Yes. I have 2 issues with "post-scarcity": - It often implicitly assumes humanity is one homogeneous
70.
by martin-t 6mo ago
Do you believe in ownership of physical property? Surely you have to understand that you own a plot of land, a house, the number in your bank account or the clothes on your back only to the extent that somebody is willing to perform violenc
71.
by martin-t 6mo ago
So? Why should it be legal? If people find this cool and wanna play with it, they can, just make sure to only mix compatible licenses in the training data and license the output appropriately. Well, the attribution issue is still there, so
72.
by martin-t 6mo ago
My chemistry teacher told us how once when he ignited helium in a test tube, the tube broke and he ended up with pieces of glass embedded in his skin. The students had face masks and he was looking the other way "just in case" for
73.
by martin-t 6mo ago
Would you say "assisted by vim" or "assisted by gcc"? It should be either something like "(partially/completely) generated by" or if you want to include deterministic tools, then "Tools-used:". T
74.
by martin-t 6mo ago
The comment says "Opus 4.6 without tool use or web access"
75.
by martin-t 6mo ago
This ruling is IMO/IANAL based on lawyers and judges not understanding how LLMs work internally, falling for the marketing campaign calling them "AI" and not understanding the full implications. LLM-creation ("training&q
76.
by martin-t 6mo ago
As opposed to an irregular person? LLMs are not persons, not even legal ones (which itself is a massive hack causing massive issues such as using corporate finances for political gain). A human has moral value a text model does not. A human
77.
by martin-t 6mo ago
This feels like the OSS community is giving up. LLMs are lossily-compressed models of code and other text (often mass-scraped despite explicit non-consent) which has licenses almost always requiring attribution and very often other conditio
78.
by martin-t 7mo ago
I wonder if the solution is democracy. Most countries used to be hereditary dictatorships ("kingdoms") just a few hundred years ago, then people picked up rifles (and guillotines) and changed that. Now, since we already have some
79.
by martin-t 7mo ago
> the nature of FOSS is that i can't really prevent anyone from using it That's my point - maybe FOSS isn't the absolute good we've been lead to believe. It was a response to locked down proprietary software which inc
80.
by martin-t 7mo ago
This is a common issue with tooling used by open source. Either you alone own the repo but then you're a single point of failure. Or you give those perms to others but then any one of them can abuse it (or get hacked). I'd like to
81.
by martin-t 7mo ago
If you had the option to also delete all your contributions to the side, would you have done it? If you had the option to exclude only certain people (e.g. those who argues with you) from seeing/using your contributions, would you have
82.
by martin-t 7mo ago
> adapt, or get left behind. See my comment above - you still see AI as a tool because you're only considering what I call "AI" instead of aAI (actual AI). Imagine Stephen Hawking level genius at every area of expertise, a
83.
by martin-t 7mo ago
Because a shakeup only happens when enough people get fucked sufficiently. I think you underestimate how actual AI would change the economy. All white collar jobs gone, not just programmers - customer support, accountants, managers, thera
84.
by martin-t 7mo ago
That makes sense and I think everyone should learn to code regardless if a machine can automate it because it makes the person better at thinking - which is what really differentiates us from other animals. But I think people object to you
85.
by martin-t 7mo ago
I don't think so. Ideally, you still have normal people deciding tradeoffs like today, it's just that the reasoning and the suggested solutions to problems have to be scientifically and logically sound. The submission[0] right nex
86.
by martin-t 7mo ago
I once read that PayPal was not successful outside the US because people outside the US couldn't understand why not just do a normal bank transfer. PayPal realized this and tried lobbying governments outside the US to make bank trans
87.
by martin-t 7mo ago
> The time may come, perhaps even soon, when AI takes over programming completely. But in the mean time, a programmer who embraces AI, yet is skeptical about everything it creates, is better-equipped than any comparably-skilled human in
88.
by martin-t 7mo ago
Sorry to see you're getting mocked. I hate both the (current) low quality and the exploitation aspects of AI more than anyone. However, I don't understand your post. What is real coding according to you?
89.
by martin-t 7mo ago
Since in my system, you cannot buy ownership of a corporate person (just like you cannot buy a natural person, for good reasons), that severely limits how such a situation could arise in the first place. You still get paid a salary, you can
90.
by martin-t 7mo ago
> Speaking of goodness, I share the majority opinion that AI is generally good I would like to know how the author concluded that this is the majority opinion.

More ›