21–30 of 1001 posts
> As a programmer, I want to write more open source than ever, now. I want to write less, just knowing that LLM models are going to be trained on my code is making me feel more strongly than ever that my open source contributions will simply be stolen. Am I wrong to feel this? Is anyone else concerned about this? We've already seen some pretty strong evidence of this with Tailwind.
What I don't understand about this whole "get on board the AI train or get left behind" narrative, what advantage does an early adopter have for AI tools? The way I see it, I can just start using AI once they get good enough for my type of work. Until then I'm continuing to learn instead of letting my brain atrophy.
> As a programmer, I want to write more open source than ever, now. I want to write less, just knowing that LLM models are going to be trained on my code is making me feel more strongly than ever that my open source contributions will simply be stolen. Am I wrong to feel this? Is anyone else concerned about this? We've already seen some pretty strong evidence of this with Tailwind.
Not everything needs to be mit or gnu.
You might feel great, thats fine, but I dont. And software quality is going down, I wouldn't agree that LLMs will help write better software
Antirez + LLM + CFO = Billion Dollar Redis company, quite plausibly.
/However/ ...
As for the delta provided by an LLM to Antirez, outside of Redis (and outside of any problem space he is already intimately familiar with), an Apples to Apples comparison would be he trying this on an equally complex codebase he has no idea about. I'll bet... what Antirez can do with Redis and LLMs (certainly useful, huge Quality of Life improvement to Antirez), he cannot even begin to do with (say) Postgres.
The only way to get there with (say) Postgres, would be to /know/ Postgres. And pretty much everyone, no matter how good, cannot get there with code-reading alone. With software at least, we need to develop a mental model of the thing by futzing about with the thing in deeply meaningful ways.
And most of us day-job grunts are in the latter spot... working in some grimy legacy multi-hundred-thousand line code-mine, full of NPM vulns, schelpping code over the wall to QA (assuming there is even a QA), and basically developing against live customers --- "learn by shipping", as they say.
I do think LLMs are wildly interesting technology, however they are poor utility for non-domain-experts. If organisations want to profit from the fully-loaded cost of LLM technology, they better also invest heavily in staff training and development.
We are 5 years in... it's fine to be sceptical. The model advancements are in the single digits now. It's not on us that they promised the world 3 years ago. It's fine and will be just fine for the next few years. A real breakthrough is at least another 5 years away and if it comes everything you do now will be obsolete. Nobody will need or care about the dude that Sloperatored Claude Code on release and that's the r…
> As a programmer, I want to write more open source than ever, now. I want to write less, just knowing that LLM models are going to be trained on my code is making me feel more strongly than ever that my open source contributions will simply be stolen. Am I wrong to feel this? Is anyone else concerned about this? We've already seen some pretty strong evidence of this with Tailwind.
I feel similarly for a different reason. I put my code out there, licensed under the GPL. It is now, through a layer of indirection, being used to construct products that are not under the GPL. That's not what I signed up for. I know the GPL didn't have a specific clause for AI, and the jury is still out on this specific case (how similar is it to a human doing the same thing?), but I like to imagine, had it been mad…
There are non-US jurisdictions where you have some options, but since most of them are trained in the US that won't help much.
What I don't understand about this whole "get on board the AI train or get left behind" narrative, what advantage does an early adopter have for AI tools? The way I see it, I can just start using AI once they get good enough for my type of work. Until then I'm continuing to learn instead of letting my brain atrophy.
I've learned a lot of new things this year thanks to AI. It's true that the low levels skills with atrophy. The high level skills will grow though; my learning rate is the same, just at a much higher abstraction level; thus covering more subjects.
The main concern is the centralisation. The value I can get out of this thing currently well exceeds my income. AI companies are buying up all the chips. I worry we'll get something like the housing market where AI will be about 50% of our income.
We have to fight this centralisation at all costs!