Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Saying Goodbye to GitHub

ersei.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 450 posts

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#61

Post by NetOpWibby »

npinsker wrote: post #19
alex_suzuki wrote: post #2

While I agree with the general observation of the article, the tone and wording feels needlessly harsh and subjective. Sentences like „I could go to GitLab, but they have their own fair share of issues and a disgusting UI/UX.“ really diminish the article and by association, also the author.

I appreciated the specific word choice there; 'disgusting' implies a strong, visceral reaction, as if to say GitLab's work is so far from the author's taste that it blocks them from considering the product, and didn't seem all that harsh if that's how the author actually feels. In a counterintuitive way, it was nice to read -- it says that UI is important; that it shouldn't be an afterthought; that it has the power t…

I actually agree with the author. Using GitLab is unpleasant. I’ve also tried cgit, Rhodecode, Gitea, Bitbucket, &c. GitLab just feels cludgey, personally.

I find comments on “professionalism” about a personal blog to be rather snooty and gatekeepy in tone. Reminds me of the unpleasant atmosphere of Lobste.rs.

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#62

Post by SanderNL »

swyx wrote: post #55
kookamamie wrote: post #34

> It's a stochastic parrot Stopped reading right there. The author clearly has no clue of how neural networks work or what makes them tick.

"stochastic parrot" is an interesting shibboleth for a certain school of thought on the capabilities of LLMs, but i think it is uncharitable to make the leap straight to "has no clue of how neural networks work". on some level, all of us who spend our free time enough to know what "stochastic parrot" refers to have some idea how NNs work, and on another, none of us know how NNs really work. we could all do with a bit…

That's fair, but it is a negative take that disregards all emergent properties. If you strip all emergent properties from it, there is nothing left. The same thing is true of all biological systems.

Why bother being "human". We are all just a bunch of cells exchanging chemicals and electrical signals. That's all there is to it. There is no reasoning, just a bunch of signals going back and forth.

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#63

Post by marcus_holmes »

slg wrote: post #42
bruce511 wrote: post #11

I'm gonna get hated on for this, but I don't think "give back" is an open source concept. I'm not aware of any Open Source license,or Free license for that matter,that has a give-back clause. Source code is available to -users- ,not prior-authors. Some Open Source licenses can be used in proprietary code, (MIT, BSD etc) with little more than simple attribution. Those developers chose that license for a reason, and I'…

If we are being honest as a community, open source developer are pretty far down the list of groups with valid grievances against this current wave of AI for how they are trained. There is at least a debatable case that these systems are operating in the spirit if not the exact letter of general open source licenses. It is a much harder argument to make for the AI trained on writing and art that is clearly copyrighte…

So you're suggesting that developers shut up and let the artists talk first? I'm not sure what the "you're suffering less than these other people" thing is actually intended to translate into? What do we do with that?

All software licences are based on copyright, same as writing, art, music, etc. Some software licences are permissive. Some writing is permissive (e.g. Cory Doctorow). Some music is permissive (e.g. Amanda Palmer). It entirely depends on what the author wants. The fact that more software is permissive is a good thing, right?

I entirely agree that there are ethical problems with training AI on copyrighted training data. But please let's not start gatekeeping this. We need to have a serious discussion as a culture about it, and saying "you're way down the list of victims" isn't helping.

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#64

Post by jacquesm »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #45
ethbr0 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ToS doesn't supercede copyright though, does it? The real rub will be the first court precedent on whether GPTs infringe on source data IP. Could see it going either way: fundamentally transformative or not.

You agree to Microsoft's ToS before you can put any code on Github, regardless of the license. You can't opt-out of those terms, regardless of your license, just as you can't opt out of Facebooks terms which give them the right to use your content for their business or marketing purposes, even if the various chain posts that have spread there might claim otherwise.

This is true, but a ToS should not be able to override an important law such as copyright, which provides you with several inalienable rights that you can only contract out of with your explicit consent. Doubly so if the ToS are changed after you post your code there without your explicit approval. I could put text in the ToS of my website that you owe me your firstborn, but that wouldn't make it legal or enforceable.

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#65

Post by philholden »

US copyright office seems to say anything written by AI cannot be copyrighted. Also a work that does not disclose which parts are AI generated cannot be copyrighted. All open source licences and creative commons are based on copyright. If you do not own the copyright you cannot release code under MIT.

As far as I can tell no one is labeling which parts of code used AI. Most devs I know are using Chat GPT at least for inspiration in solving problems. Pretty sure soon almost every file will have snippets of AI code. Companies have little control to stop this. So to me it looks like every company is unknowingly making its codebase public domain.

Open AI caches its responses so can scan private codebases to know which use AI. Copilot also knows which codebases use AI. If they find a codebase that uses AI but does not disclose where it is used then that codebase can be used for further AI training. Major companies will need to use copilot x, vscode and github to remain competitive. So microsoft could end up sucking up all the proprietary knowledge of every industry.

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#66

Post by blackarck »

senko wrote: post #47

"When I was young I found X. It was wonderful and full of stars! As I grew up, things changed, but I stayed with X because I was used to it. Finally, Y happened and I have to leave X because I really dislike Y. Goodbye! (ps. I'm not actually leaving because I want to be involved with things that are still going on there, but I want it to be known I don't really like X anymore)" Replace X with GitHub, Facebook, Twitte…

have seen this type of advertisement for Y product lot lately. You don't have to bash one product just to advertise another one. AI is not going away; you either embrace it now or after a few years. With its usage, it will evolve and get better with time, both as a product and the solutions they provide

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#69

Post by WinstonSmith84 »

bruce511 wrote: post #11

I'm gonna get hated on for this, but I don't think "give back" is an open source concept. I'm not aware of any Open Source license,or Free license for that matter,that has a give-back clause. Source code is available to -users- ,not prior-authors. Some Open Source licenses can be used in proprietary code, (MIT, BSD etc) with little more than simple attribution. Those developers chose that license for a reason, and I'…

Most people I know who contribute, or host open source projects, me included, do this for references. And the most successful ones find a way to generate revenue. "Giving back" is a nice additional thing, but I don't know anybody who does that _primarily_ to "help the world"

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#70

Post by bigpeopleareold »

jacooper wrote: post #44
bigpeopleareold wrote: post #38

You don't give up GitHub as long as you're employed in many companies that have accepted it and are looking for information on pretty much most open source software these days. The only thing is to just host your own projects elsewhere. I did this a long time ago because I was unhappy over GitHub's interface. I am realizing further that all I need is a web page and a link on my personal web site. If I really wanted t…

I have heard from some people that many companies specifically ask for your github profile, in many places only the user tag, not a link which can be changed to gitlab or something else. So it will effect your job chances, even if the job has nothing to do with managing GitHub.

Thankfully that hasn't happened for me, yet. Or maybe that could be my own selection criteria - an active GitHub account should not be a prerequisite to get any type of computer job. If the hiring manager is serious about me, they can find the URL in my GitHub profile.
Post reply on HN