w4ffl35

17 ms·

181.
by w4ffl35 4y ago
Limiting a software engineers career to less than 20 years is a pretty fucking idiotic thing to do.
182.
by w4ffl35 4y ago
This might help https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/what-is-the-strangler-patt...
183.
by w4ffl35 4y ago
they can and in my opinion still should learn on BASIC or QBASIC
184.
by w4ffl35 4y ago
What country is your company in?
185.
by w4ffl35 4y ago
A popup on the homepage that says "are you over the age of 21?" for every site should work then, right? Or at least if you detect that the traffic is coming from California.
186.
by w4ffl35 4y ago
Scratch, for apps. No thanks.
187.
by w4ffl35 4y ago
implies their product is weak
188.
by w4ffl35 4y ago
I thought this was odd as well.
189.
by w4ffl35 4y ago
RIP my job
190.
by w4ffl35 4y ago
quality of life
191.
by w4ffl35 4y ago
Your comment is misinformed. There are religions for atheists, such as Satanism. UFOlogy is not a religion, and certainly neither are "UFO". Unidentified Flying Objects could hardly be considered a religion. That's like sayin
192.
by w4ffl35 4y ago
i will be keeping all of this in mind the next time im making payment processing decisions for small businesses.
193.
by w4ffl35 4y ago
exactly
194.
by w4ffl35 4y ago
mine is just black its not even shaded
195.
by w4ffl35 4y ago
i'm an outrage angel investor
196.
by w4ffl35 4y ago
The problem is how they got the data to generate anything in the first place. They trained on code with restrictive licenses (according to reports from multiple users), trained on open source free code etc. and then this microsoft the multi
197.
by w4ffl35 4y ago
The problem is not about what it generates, its about how it got the data to generate it.
198.
by w4ffl35 4y ago
what makes you think the product no longer trains on code it shouldn't be touching?
199.
by w4ffl35 4y ago
I take your point - NASA's github code is public domain for example. But we still need to respect existing copyrights and its very disheartening (but not unexpected) to see Microsoft and Github fail in that regard
200.
by w4ffl35 4y ago
The longer the product exists, the less it will exist only for the entry level developer. It's naive to assume this is its final form.
201.
by w4ffl35 4y ago
The problem I have with it isn't the few lines of code it generates, its the ingestion of the millions of repos from millions of devs, creating an AI model from that free code, and then charging for the product. I'm already a payi
202.
by w4ffl35 4y ago
if this is legal then what prevents us from scraping github, gitlab etc. and making the same product? edit: my guess is github / gitlab etc terms of service would probably prevent this.
203.
by w4ffl35 4y ago
which it does apparently https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27710287
204.
by w4ffl35 4y ago
why bother having copyrights at all?
205.
by w4ffl35 4y ago
these are great points. perhaps the question i should have asked was: is this the death of open source licenses?
206.
by w4ffl35 4y ago
Correct, but M$ is challenging all open source licenses by violating them and charging for the product.
207.
by w4ffl35 4y ago
well, none of us stand to gain from that technicality being violated, only M$ does, and the law does thrive on technicalities.
208.
by w4ffl35 4y ago
> you want open source software to be better for you and for others tell that to M$ who is making $100 per user for that free labor.
209.
by w4ffl35 4y ago
the big deal part is that it's a multi billion dollar corporation making money off of a derivative work while blatantly disregarding copyright.
210.
by w4ffl35 4y ago
The fact that they trained on those code bases means they ingested the code. IMO they used libraries and didn't give attribution. AI doesn't actually "learn", it makes inferences based on the reinterpretation of data fed

More ›