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

Gitlab Duo

about.gitlab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 160 posts

Re: Gitlab Duo

#51

Post by pid-1 »

andybak wrote: post #14
bogwog wrote: post #11

A half-assed feature nobody asked for? In my Gitlab?! Unbelievable!! On a serious note, wtf Gitlab? Every once in a while I get an email notification from a feature request I subscribed to (that has been open for years) because yet another large premium customer requests that it be implemented. Gitlabs response is always that they don't have capacity/manpower to implement it, yet they're able to implement crap like t…

Are your features potentially new revenue streams? This is. Or at least they believe it can be.

~5 years ago GitLab had many features that distinguished itself from competition, chiefly their CI/CD stuff. It was leagues above of what everyone offered.

They've spent the last years building stuff I don't care while not improving the stuff I care. During this period, GitHub built Actions.

Nowadays GitLab is more expensive than GitHub (GitLab Premium vs GitHub Enterprise) while also not having any particular feature that makes me want to use it over GitHub. If I was starting a software team today, there is no reason I'd be using GitLab.

In the long term their strategy of having too many half assed features might bite back instead of generating revenue streams.

Re: Gitlab Duo

#52

Post by TechTechTech »

I run a self hosted Gitlab CE instance for many years now and I am very happy with it. I also experiment a lot with local LLMs. Will there be a CE release which allows for usage combined with a locally running LLM in the future?

Re: Gitlab Duo

#53

Post by freedomben »

golergka wrote: post #44
remram wrote: post #27

From that page: > Will my code be used for training AI models? > GitLab does not train generative AI models based on private (non-public) data. The vendors we work with also do not train models based on private data. So they will steal your code if it is public, ignoring license. Understood.

If a person can read it and learn from it, AI should be able to do the same.

I agree. Given the effort that has been put in to ensure code isn't copied verbatim, I don't see much of a philosophic difference between a human doing it or AI doing it.

That said I think it's weasely that they would just explicitly say it. It's obviously a question a lot of people have if it's in the FAQs, and a non-answer like, "we never train on private code" is ridiculous.

Re: Gitlab Duo

#54

Post by toastal »

pryelluw wrote: post #43
remram wrote: post #27

From that page: > Will my code be used for training AI models? > GitLab does not train generative AI models based on private (non-public) data. The vendors we work with also do not train models based on private data. So they will steal your code if it is public, ignoring license. Understood.

I’ve been feeling more and more that we should reconsider open source licenses to protect our rights as authors from LLM vendors. I’m not against them basing their models on my work. I do have reservations on them generating their models on my work and creating derivative works without respecting the license. It’s why I’ve started to use the MIT license less and less and have adopted various from the GPL family. Mode…

https://github.com/non-ai-licenses/non-ai-licenses

These aren’t official (& hosted on a different, proprietary data siphoner), but there are attempts to add anti-AI clauses.

Re: Gitlab Duo

#55

Post by jacooper »

remram wrote: post #27

From that page: > Will my code be used for training AI models? > GitLab does not train generative AI models based on private (non-public) data. The vendors we work with also do not train models based on private data. So they will steal your code if it is public, ignoring license. Understood.

This is for the supreme Court to decide, till then, its assumed to be fair use by these companies.

Re: Gitlab Duo

#56

Post by misnome »

nicce wrote: post #9
Kelteseth wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Forgejo would be an alternative if we really would need to switch. GitLab pricing is ok for us, not great, not terrible for a small team of 6 devs...

The pricing of the GitLab has changed so many times in the past years and free tier has changed as well. It has made GitLab so unpredictable that I had to switch away. Someone could say that enshittification is on the way.

It changed to match Github, and then it changed to exceed Github.

Probably the biggest sales advantage Gitlab has is that nobody seems to know/remember that it's possible to run Github on-prem. That's exactly the reason our organisation chose it.

Re: Gitlab Duo

#59

Post by oblio »

golergka wrote: post #44
remram wrote: post #27

From that page: > Will my code be used for training AI models? > GitLab does not train generative AI models based on private (non-public) data. The vendors we work with also do not train models based on private data. So they will steal your code if it is public, ignoring license. Understood.

If a person can read it and learn from it, AI should be able to do the same.

There's a valid moral question here, in short: why?

I care about helping other people.

Helping some type of amoral entity that's usually controlled by another amoral for-profit entity: why would I help those?

Re: Gitlab Duo

#60

Post by roywiggins »

toastal wrote: post #54
pryelluw wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been feeling more and more that we should reconsider open source licenses to protect our rights as authors from LLM vendors. I’m not against them basing their models on my work. I do have reservations on them generating their models on my work and creating derivative works without respecting the license. It’s why I’ve started to use the MIT license less and less and have adopted various from the GPL family. Mode…

https://github.com/non-ai-licenses/non-ai-licenses These aren’t official (& hosted on a different, proprietary data siphoner), but there are attempts to add anti-AI clauses.

Companies are busy training their LLMs on totally unlicensed material. I'd be curious to know how much weight, legally speaking, anti-AI clauses can have. Naively I would expect no license should be maximally restrictive on what you can do with something.
Post reply on HN