[deleted]
Saying Goodbye to GitHub
161–170 of 450 posts
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. In essence, copyleft licenses are exactly that. They oblige the author of a derived work to publish the changes to all users under the same terms. The original authors tend to be users. So, a license which would grant this directly to the original authors woul…
I'm not sure I agree with this as a general point of view. Speaking generally, I'm not sure that one can claim >> The original authors tend to be the users There are endless forks of say emacs,and I expect RMS is not s user of any of them. Of course RMS is free to inspect the code for all of them, separate out bug fixes from features, and retro apply it to his build. But I'm not seeing anything in any license that re…
Most people don't actually want to maintain a fork. They would prefer that their patches are mainlined.
Consider Linux. It's huge and most vendors really don't want to maintain a fully independent fork. One reason they might do it anyway, is if they could keep their patches private. But the GPL means they can't, so most just choose to upstream patches.
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
> now quickly taking on the role of a general reasoning engine And this right here is why it's important to emphasize the "stochastic parrot" fact. Because people think this is true and are making decisions based on this misunderstanding.
Or maybe they just disagree with you?
Who?
See: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3442188.3445922
A 2021 research paper warning (among other things) precisly about this confusion.
> The ersatz fluency and coherence of LMs raises several risks, precisely because humans are prepared to interpret strings belonging to languages they speak as meaningful and corresponding to the communicative intent of some individual or group of individuals who have accountability for what is said
Is there any Researcher who maintains that LLM models contain Reasoning and intent?
Those who are working on this models are not confused, they know what they are, the Public is confused.
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
what is so bad about the UI/UX? i'm not a frequent gitlab user but it doesnt strike me as anything out of the ordinary
A few things I personally don't like:
- Use of space: GitLab has more empty space across the site. Elements have a bit too much padding for my tastes and are spaced a bit too far apart. Valuable screen space (top center) contains a lot of needless information on GitLab (table headers, project ID, language breakdown, a prompt to add a CONTRIBUTING file) which is either not present or located off to the side on GitHub.
- Color and typography: GitHub is one of the best sites at this, using pops of color for important buttons and really fun typography. I love how GitHub has your avatar "speak" a commit description, it's a great little touch. GitLab's design feels like it has less personality. Quick comparison: https://imgur.com/a/Ejd1Q1X
- Attention to detail: A bit less of it on GitLab -- icons and text don't vertically align in some places; several of the dropdown menus could use a bit of visual improvement, or have an ill-fitting item or two; in my screenshot above, GitLab's "Commit message" and "Target Branch" have inconsistent capitalization.
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#165Earlier 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.
> ToS doesn't supercede copyright though, does it? But in what way does reading a copyrighted work and then producing a mass of numbers as a result infringe copyright?
The copyright infringement comes about later, when that mass of numbers is used to produce a topically related work. The same rules apply for humans -- see the concept of "clean room implementation".
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not violating the law, I'm violating the ToS. They should them remove the my account and the offending code, lest they then go on to violate the law, no?
Yes but I guess it won't happen until someone complains. Similar to other content, e.g. YouTube, but in reality nobody requests takedowns of forks/copies.
Alright, now suppose someone does. Doesn't that mean Microsoft has to rework all work they made with these codebases using this legal argument and not a fair use one? Doesn't even doing this set them up for a potentially very expensive compliance action?
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#167I'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'…
Co-pilot spits back protected expressions, not novel expressions based on ideas harvested from code. It is therefore violating the licenses of numerous free and open source projects. The author is right to be pissed.
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#168> The code that was regurgitated by the model is marketed as "AI generated" and available for use for any project you want. Including proprietary ones. It's laundering open-source code. All of the decades of knowledge and uncountable hours of work is being, well, stolen. There is nothing being given back. Leaving GitHub wont change that, OpenAI is training its models on every bit of code they can have, sourcehut, cod…
This whole open source thing is the biggest farce on planet Earth. Someone with a good knowledge about geeks and their behaviour concocted up this open source bullshit. So now talented people give their skill to the "whole" and they have to beg for contributions and donations to get by. And other geeks (not suits with ties) finance the ones they sympathise with. It's ridiculous.
And faceless entities use their hard work for who knows what, but mostly to fatten up their already oversized corp and give back NOTHING.
And people, seemingly without common sense suck up to companies that rob them, and even disseminate their shiny new "free" tools.
This would be a Hugo-Nebula award winner novel if it wouldn't be reality.
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#169"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…
> Replace X with GitHub, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Usenet, IRC, ... this is an archetypal growing up and facing change in the world story.
It might have the same structure, but that is merely a grammatical structure or maybe reason structure. It does say nothing about the actual reasons themselves. We should not dismiss an argument just for following a well known structure. For all of the things you listed there can be valid reasons to leave them and those could be put in that structure or another typical one. I think it becomes even more natural to have that structure, if we consider the "flow" of time. Of course things are going to change. But that does not invalidate the argument at all.
Maybe you only wanted to highlight the structure. I don't know that. I merely want to mention, that arguments should not be dismissed purely based on their structure.
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#170Earlier 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.
It shouldn't but good luck fighting the 500 Lbs gorilla on its home turf. Most people will avoid the fight, even if they are in the right.
Apple, Google, Meta, Amazon, Nvidia use Github. They together are a bigger gorilla.