411–420 of 482 posts
I support this idea. All the prompts and responses should be committed to git
How does this not lead to a situation where no honest person can use any AI in their submissions? Surely pull requests that acknowledge AI tooling will be given significantly less attention, on the grounds that no one wants to read work that they know is written by AI.
Make a knowledgeable reply and mention you used chat-gpt - comment immediately buried. Make a knowledgeable reply and give no reference to the AI you used- comment is celebrated. We are already barreling full speed down the "hide your AI use" path.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
reddit is a user hostile company, have been forever, always will be. they take rights over your content, farm things about you, sell data, do invasive things in the mobile apps, use creepware cookies, etc. Excerpt from the user agreement: When Your Content is created with or submitted to the Services, you grant us a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable, and sublicensable licens…
With respect to the content or other materials you upload through the Site or share with other users or recipients (collectively, “User Content”), you represent and warrant that you own all right, title and interest in and to such User Content, including, without limitation, all copyrights and rights of publicity contained therein. With respect to the content or other materials you upload through the Site or share wi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a nondismissive way, I see things like this (the gh issue) as part of the reactionary movement / counter culture of our time. People want to feel agency and will react to mainstream pressures. And make up whatever excuses along the way to justify what theyre feeling.
I don't think it has anything to do with being a reactionary movement or counter culture. If it were I would expect, among other things, that it would absolutely prohibit the use of AI entirely rather than just require disclosure. The background is that many higher profile open source projects are getting deluged by low quality AI slop "contributions", not just crappy code but when you ask questions about it you some…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that the level of complexity of task it can do is likely to rise over time. I often talk about the "next generation" of AI that will actually be what we were promised LLMs would be, but LLMs architecturally are just not suited for. I think the time is coming when AIs "truly" (for some definition of truly) will understand architecture and systems in a way that LLMs don't and really can't, and will be able to d…
Yes, but: (1) The process of creating "a very, very precise and detailed understanding of the actual problem" is something AI is really good at, when partnered with a human. My use of AI tools got immensely better when I figured out that I should be prompting the AI to turn my vague short request into a detailed prompt, and then I spend a few iteration cycles fixing up before asking the agent to do it. (2) The other…
But then I suppose I should learn from my own experiences and not try to make information theoretic arguments on HN, since it is in that most terrible state where everyone thinks they understand it because they use "bits" all the time, but in fact the average HN denizen knows less than nothing about it because even their definition of "bit" actively misleads them and that's about all they know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> in exchange for you not taking a short-cut writing it in the first place. This “short cut” language suggests that the quality of the submission is going to be objectively worse by way of its provenance. Yet, can one reliably distinguish working and tested code generated by a person vs a machine? We’re well past passing Turing tests at this point.
LLMs can't count letters, their writing is boring, and you can trick them into talking gibberish. That is a long way off the Turing test, even if we were fooled for a couple of weeks in 2022. IMO when people declare that LLMs "pass" at a particular skill, it's a sign that they don't have the taste or experience to judge that skill themselves. Or - when it's CEOs - they have an interest in devaluing it. So yes if you'…
Would you like to take the Pepsi challenge? Happy to put random code snippets in front of you and see whether you can accurately determine whether it was written by a human or an LLM.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just about how you got there. At least in the United States according to the Copyright Office... materials produced by artificial intelligence are not eligible for copyright. So, yeah, some people want to know for licensing purposes. I don't think that's the case here, but it is yet another reason to require that kind of disclosure... since if you fail to mention that something was made by AI as part of a co…
> • The use of AI tools to assist rather than stand in for human creativity does not affect the availability of copyright protection for the output. > • Copyright protects the original expression in a work created by a human author, even if the work also includes AI-generated material > • Human authors are entitled to copyright in their works of authorship that are perceptible in AI-generated outputs, as well as the…
"In the Office’s view, it is well-established that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity. Most fundamentally, the term “author,” which is used in both the Constitution and the Copyright Act, excludes non-humans." "In the case of works containing AI-generated material, the Office will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of “mechanical reproduction” or instead of an author’s “own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form.” 24 The answer will depend on the circumstances, particularly how the AI tool operates and how it was used to create the final work.25 This is necessarily a case-by-case inquiry." "If a work’s traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it."
The office has been quite consistent that works containing both human-made and AI-made elements will be registerable only to the extent that they contain human-made elements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's several sides of music copyright: 1. The lyrics 2. The composition 3. The recording These can all be owned by different people or the same person. The "royalty free covers" you mention are people abusing the rights of one of those. They're not avoiding royalties, they just havn't been caught yet.
I believe performance of a cover still results in relevant royalties paid to the original songwriter, just sans the performance fee, which does not strike me as a terrible ripoff (after all, a cover did take effort to arrange and perform).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe performance of a cover still results in relevant royalties paid to the original songwriter, just sans the performance fee, which does not strike me as a terrible ripoff (after all, a cover did take effort to arrange and perform).
What this person is talking about is they write “tvinkle tvinkle ittle stawr” instead of the real lyrics (basically just writing the words phonetically and/or misspelled) to try and bypass the law through “technicalities” that wouldn’t stand up in court.
Regarding what you described, I don’t think I encountered this in the wild enough to remember. IANAL but if not cleared/registered properly as a cover it doesn’t seem to be a workaround or abuse, but would probably be found straight up illegal if the rights holder or relevant rights organization cares to sue. In this case, all I can say is “yes, some people do illegal stuff”. The system largely works.