Microsoft eventually shits on everything, so this was predictable. The spirit of open source is orthogonal to that of corporate interests.
Saying Goodbye to GitHub
281–290 of 450 posts
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. Ama…
> 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? The tech community has a tendency to not care about issues like this until it effects us. I’m not telling people to shut up about this. I’m saying don’t be a hypocrite. If this is the wrong approach f…
> If this is the wrong approach for GitHub, it is a problem with the way all these AI are trained.
Broken logic.
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#283> Well, there just aren't many places I can go. I could go to GitLab, but they have their own fair share of issues and a disgusting UI/UX. Not sure when was the last time the author checked them out, GitLab had a bad UI, but they've some improvements done during the recent times. IMO they are pretty OK now (still not as good as GitHub, that is I don't even think GitHub has good UI). But SourceHut is a nice pick anywa…
GitLab team member here. Thanks for the feedback.
Beautifying our UI [0] is an ongoing effort and usability improvements [1] are specifically mentioned in the product investment themes for this fiscal year.
0 - https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/7781
1 - https://about.gitlab.com/direction/#world-class-devsecops-ex...
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#284> 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…
I'm mostly familiar with gitlab, what does github provide for free above and beyond that? I like that I can run my gitlab pipeline on my machines and sync to a free gitlab instance. I like that I don't read about security vulnerabilities in gitlab pipelines nearly as often as github actions. I like gitlab issues as they are fairly minimal.
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems to be what people imagine about it, not what it actually does, although I don’t doubt you could cherry-pick some snippet after a lot of trial and error to try to claim that it had regurgitated something verbatim. But certainly let’s see the examples.
You never know if a snippet it created came from another project verbatim or not… unless you claim you know all of the code that exists?
That's a bit extreme. In theory, an LLM's proclivity for plagiarism could be studied by testing it with various prompts and searching its training data for its responses (maybe with some edit distance tolerance).
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s pretty ironic that the argument that LLMs are stochastic parrots actually sounds like the actual parrot. I think we’re now way past that now with LLMs now quickly taking on the role of a general reasoning engine.
Since ChatGPT I've become much more aware of my own thoughts and written text. I'm now often wondering whether I'm just regurgitating the most frequently used next word or phrase or whether it could actually be described as original. Especially, for things like reacting with short answers to chat messages, I am confident that these are only reactionary answers without alternatives, which could have come from ChatGPT…
In this vein, ChatGPT is a nice way to start thinking about any topic; ask it about its opinion on anything and it will give you the most run-of-the-mill, middle-of-the-road text that is possible, standing for nothing. If you find yourself agreeing with ChatGPT it may be time to reconsider your own thinking!
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#287Earlier 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…
You'd think so, but there's also a good chunk of copyleft code that's just "here's our source code, go figure out how to deploy lol". You can try to fork it into something workable, but that can sometimes literally mean trying to figure out what the actual deployment process is and what weird tweaks were done to the deploying device beforehand. In addition, forking those projects is also unworkable if the original ha…
People do release software as open source for the "street cred" (perhaps unsurprisingly given the school of thought that you don't deserve a developer job if you can't show off a GitHub repo). A lot of people also create something and figure "why not?" They may just not be interested in doing any serious community development and maintenance. There are even significant open source projects that are pretty much a closed development process.
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#288I tend to disregard articles that default to the "Stochastic Parrot" argument. These tools are useful now, I don't personally care about achieving actual intelligence. I want additional utility for myself and other humans, which these provide now, at scale. By a lot of measures many humans perform at just about the same level, including confidently making up bullshit. This post reads like one of the "Goodbye X online…
It’s pretty ironic that the argument that LLMs are stochastic parrots actually sounds like the actual parrot. I think we’re now way past that now with LLMs now quickly taking on the role of a general reasoning engine.
> I think we’re now way past that now with LLMs now quickly taking on the role of a general reasoning engine.
No we're not, and no they are not.
An LLM doesn't reason, period. It mimics reasoning ability by stochastically chosing a sequence of tokens. Alot of the time these make sense. At other times, they don't make any sense. I recently asked an LLM:
"Mike leaves the elevator at the 2nd floor. Jenny leaves at the 9th floor. Who left the elevator first?"
"If the elevator started at the 10th floor, who would have left first?"
Yes, they can also produce the correct answers to both these questions, but the fact that they can also spew such complete illogical nonsense shows that they are not "reasoning" about things. They complete sequences, that's it, period, that's literally the only thing a language model can do.
Their apparent emergent abilities look like reasoning, in the same way as Jen from "The IT crowd" can sound like shes speaking Italian, when in fact she has no idea what she is even saying.
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#289I am totally against GitHub using public code, but not permissible licence. I too to want to move out of it.
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is that different from "This evidence for X raises the risk that people falsely believe that X"? That's an argument for X, not against. And nothing in that paper, even if I discard the dross (ie. everything except one section on page 7), seems to actually make an argument against X of any strength beyond "it is wrong because it is wrong". My point is this: I disagree with you. This is not because I have "misunder…
Well what you are saying is that the argument of the creators of the model is erroneous and you know better. More power to you.
Bad argument is bad argument, doesn't matter who says it.