131–140 of 166 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Drug dealers have figured this out long ago. Never get high on your own stuff... No surprise this is the same with tech.
Smoking crack /= using your own software. In fact i would recommend every dev to use their own stuff, "dogfooding" helps a lot to improve the product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't have to have built a car to be able to judge the quality of a car to a decent approximation. And with code, surely, skill carry over is very real. Being able to generalize is literally our entire thing.
as someone who worked for a car manufacturer, you are wrong. What people perceive as a quality car, is often a lack of understanding. Some think they are driving a fine car, but someone who pays attention notices that the door gaps are not uniform, that the plastic on the inside will start to smell bad in summer, that you will get a lot more fatigue because of wind noise and tire noise, that the sound of the door bei…
Getting these things right takes extra effort. If the customer didn't care, it would not be done.
Certainly, not every layman will be able tell you in so many words WHY it's nice and everyone cares about different things in a product (while it's the designers job to care about all of them)
But that was not really the contention now, was it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's usually somewhat easy to verify a piece of code is not obviously wrong, what's much harder is proving that a piece of code is not subtlety wrong. When given a complete piece of code that appears to work, it can be very easy to convince yourself that you understand it well enough to know that it is correct, even when it's not. This problem isn't unique to LLMs, refer to the case of programmers copying binary sear…
"this looks about right and has no obvious bugs" is my standard when reviewing human code, and it's my standard for machine-generated code too. no reason to formally verify GPT-4 outputs if I'm not formally verifying my coworker's either.
Unless I'm feeling particularly lazy or the code isn't important.
> Cautioning its own workers not to directly use code generated by Bard undermines Google's claims its chatbot can help developers become more productive The definitive definition of irony o_O This reminds me of two pictures that were circulating on social media a while ago. The first was Zuckerberg holding a book while billions of people are wasting their time in endless scrolling in the Metas; the second was that T…
There are ways for developers to use chatbots that doesn't involve copy-pasting code into your own codebase. Just like there is a difference between not using stackoverflow (which is foolish) and not copy-pasting from stackoverflow (which is sensible).
I have used ChatGPT a few times as a developer and found it useful, but never directly copied code from it. I had it document my code for me though, so maybe if you count comments as code, I did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We're still at I didn't hear we were ever there?
Were we ever NOT there? https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/ai-copyright "Can AI Art Be Copyrighted? It has long been the posture of the U.S. Copyright Office that there is no copyright protection for works created by non-humans, including machines. Therefore, the product of a generative AI model cannot be copyrighted."
https://copyright.gov/docs/zarya-of-the-dawn.pdf is the letter that lays out why they don't think Midjourney is a paintbrush rather than a monkey.
I can't tell that this is a long-standing interpretation, rather than a recent ruling, conceivably a blip.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Except they have an offering in the market for other people to do just that. bard.google.com states right on the front page: "Bard is an experiment and may give inaccurate or inappropriate responses." Also, the warning is about _all_ LLMs.
And google is nonetheless happy to have countless other coders use their experiment, just not their own. Leave other LLMs to the side on this issue. There are a variety of different issue that arise when Google employees might use a non-Google LLM, so that prohibition is in a category with different reasons.
What makes you think so? Those LLMs aren't primarily coding tools.
> Leave other LLMs to the side on this issue
https://www.reuters.com/technology/google-one-ais-biggest-ba... indicates that the ban is about "all LLMs, period".
It's ElReg who, true to their style, decided to focus the discussion on Google employees using (or not using) Google's LLM. Even they, however, acknowledge that Google "also advised users not to include sensitive information in their conversations with Bard in an updated privacy notice."
As such, Google seems to apply the same standard to other users (including "countless /other/ coders") that it applies to its employees, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AI generated works are public domain That's not the status quo. The biggest concern is that AI can sometimes generate code from the training set verbatim, in which case that code has the copyright of the original training set - which might be GPL or proprietary or whatever else.
My understanding was the copyright office indicated you can't get copyright for AI generated works: https://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-created-images-lose-us-copy... so it may not be "public domain", but if you can't get copyright protection in the US I don't see a difference.