151–160 of 427 posts
I wish people would make distinction regarding the size/scope of the AI-generated parts. Like with video copyright laws, where a 5-second clip from a copyrighted movie is usually considered fair use and not frowned upon. Because for projects like QEMU, current AI models can actually do mind-boggling stuff. You can give it a PDF describing an instruction set, and it will generate you wrapper classes for emulating part…
There are simple algorithms that everyone will implement the same way down to the variable names, but aside from those fairly rare exceptions, there's no "maximum number of lines" metric to describe how much code is "fair use" regardless of the licence of the code "fair use"d in your scenario.
Depending on the context, even in the US that 5-second clip would not pass fair use doctrine muster. If I made a new film cut entirely from five second clips of different movies and tried a fair use doctrine defence, I would likely never see the outside of a courtroom for the rest of my life. If I tried to do so with licensing, I would probably pay more than it cost to make all those movies.
Look up the decisions over the last two decades over sampling (there are albums from the late 80s and 90s — when sampling was relatively new — which will never see another pressing or release because of these decisions). The musicians and producers who chose the samples thought they would be covered by fair use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you show these 3 things to us?
For some reason these fully functional ai generated projects that the authors vibe out while playing guitar and clipping their toenails are never open source.
I don't think anyone is claiming that. If you submit changes to a FOSS project and an LLM assisted you in writing them how would anyone know? Assuming at least that you are an otherwise competent developer and that you carefully review all code before you commit it.
The (admittedly still controversial) claim being made is that developers with LLM assistance are more productive than those without. Further, that there is little incentive for such developers to advertise this assistance. Less trouble for all involved to represent it as 100% your own unassisted work.
Oh hey, the thing I predicted in my blog titled "yes i will judge you for using AI" happened lol Basically I think open source has traditionally HEAVILY relied on hidden competency markers to judge the quality of incoming contributions. LLMs throw that entire concept on its head by presenting code that has competent markers but none of the backing experience. It is a very very jarring experience for experienced indiv…
I've started seeing this at work with coworkers using LLMs to generate code reviews. They submit comments which are way above their skill level which almost trick you in to thinking they are correct since only a very skilled developer would make these suggestions. And then ultimately you end up wasting tons of time proving how these suggestions are wrong. Spending far more time than the person pasting the suggestions…
It look like LLM is not good for cooperation, because the nature of LLM is randomness.
AI generated code is generally pretty good and incredibly fast. Seeing this new phenomenon must be difficult for those people who have spent a long time perfecting their craft. Essentially, they might feel that their skillsets are being undermined. It would be especially hard for people who associate a lot of their self-identity with their job. Being a purist is noble, but I think that this stance is foolish. Essenti…
It's not a stance about the merits of AI generated code but about the legal status of it, in terms of who owns it and related concepts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's happening slowly all around. It's not obvious because people producing high quality stuff have no incentive at all to mark their changes as AI-generated. But there are also local tools generated faster than you could adjust existing tools to do what you want. I'm running 3 things now just for myself that I generated from scratch instead of trying to send feature requests to existing apps I can buy. It's only goi…
Can you show these 3 things to us?
I'm getting towards the end of a vibe coded ZFS storage backend to ganeti that includes the ability to live migrate VMs to another host by: taking snapshot and replicating it to target, pausing VM, taking another incremental snapshot and replicating it, and then unpausing the VM on the new destination machine. https://github.com/linsomniac/ganeti/tree/newzfs
Other LLM tools I've built this week:
This afternoon I built a web-based SQL query editor/runner with results display, for dev/ops people to run read-only queries against our production database. To replace an existing super simple one, and add query syntax highlighting, snippet library, and other modern features. I can probably release this though I'd need to verify that it won't leak anything. Targets SQL Server.
A couple CLI Jira tools to pull a list of tickets I'm working on (with cache so I can get an immediate response, then get updates after Jira response comes back), and tickets with tags that indicate I have to handle them specially.
An icinga CLI that downtimes hosts, for when we do sweeping machine maintenances like rebooting a VM host with dozens of monitored children.
An Ansible module that is a "swiss army knife" for filesystem manipulation, merging the functions of copy, template, file, so you can loop over a list and: create a directory, template a couple files into it, doing a notify on one and a when on another, ensure a file exists if it doesn't already, to reduce duplication of boilerplate when doing a bunch of file deploys. This I will release as a ansible galaxy module once I have it tested a little more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> or public domain https://news.artnet.com/art-world/ai-art-us-copyright-office... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput... Im pretty sure that this ship has sailed.
It's sailed, but towards the other way: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg5vjqdm1ypo
Remember, anyone can attempt to sue anyone for anything at any time in a functional system. How far the suit makes it is a different matter.
I understand where this comes from but I think it's a mistake. I agree it would be nice if there were "well settled law" regarding AI and copyright, probably relatively few rulings and next to zero legislation on which to base their feelings. In addition to a policy to reject contributions from AI, I think it may make sense to point out places where AI generated content can be used. For example - how much of QEMU pro…
What's the risk of not doing this? Better code but slower velocity for an open source project? I think that particular brand of risk makes sense for this particular project, and the authors don't seem particularly negative toward GenAI as a concept, just going through a "one way door" with it.
Better code and "AI assist coding" are not exclusive of each other.
I wish people would make distinction regarding the size/scope of the AI-generated parts. Like with video copyright laws, where a 5-second clip from a copyrighted movie is usually considered fair use and not frowned upon. Because for projects like QEMU, current AI models can actually do mind-boggling stuff. You can give it a PDF describing an instruction set, and it will generate you wrapper classes for emulating part…
It sounds like you're saying someone could rewrite Qemu on their own, with the help of AI. That would be pretty funny.