Live data from Hacker News

Don't fall into the anti-AI hype

antirez.com

81–90 of 1001 posts

Re: Don't fall into the anti-AI hype

#81

>Yes, maybe you think that you worked so hard to learn coding, and now machines are doing it for you. But what was the fire inside you, when you coded till night to see your project working? It was building. And now you can build more and better, if you find your way to use AI effectively. The fun is still there, untouched. I wonder if I’m the odd one out or if this is a common sentiment: I don’t give a shit about bu…

Learning, solving puzzles and understanding something was a bigger desire for me than building another to-do list. In fact, most of my building effort has been used by corporations to make software worse for users.

Re: Don't fall into the anti-AI hype

#82

"Die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain" AI is both a near-perfect propaganda machine and, in the programming front, a self-fulfilling prophecy: yes, AI will be better at coding than human. Mostly because humans are made worse by using AI.

It's a zero sum game. AI cannot innovate, it can only predictively generate code based on what it's already seen. If we get to a point where new code is mostly or only written by AI, nothing new emerges. No new libraries, no new techniques, no new approaches. Fewer and fewer real developers means less and less new code.

Nonsense indeed. The model knowledge is the current state of the art. Any computation it does, advances it. It re-ingests work of prior agents every time you run it on your codebase, so even though the model initializes the same way (until they update the model), upon repeated calls it ingests more and more novel information, inching the state of the art ever forwards.

Re: Don't fall into the anti-AI hype

#83
post #6

The “anti-AU hype” phrase oversimplifies what’s playing out at the moment. On the tech side, while things are a bit rough around the edges still the tech is very useful and isn’t going away. I honestly don’t see much disagreement there. The concern mostly comes from the business side… that for all the usefulness on the tech there is no clearly viable path that financially supports everything that’s going on. It’s a n…

People said the exact same thing about (numbers from memory, might be off):

- when Google paid $1 bil for YouTube

- when Facebook paid $1 bil for Instagram

- when Facebook paid $1 bil for WhatsApp

The same thing - these 3 companies make no money, and have no path to making money, and that the price paid was crazy and decoupled from any economics.

Yet now, in hindsight, they look like brilliant business decisions.

Re: Don't fall into the anti-AI hype

#84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[not an ai booster] I think you are the target of this article. I believe you are misunderstanding the current capacity AI

I think I spend too much time at work fixing the greatness of AI.

I think it would make sense to have these issues bubble up into the public consciousness of hackernews.

I've never used AI to code, I'm a software architect and currently assume I get little value out of an LLM. It would be useful for me if this debate had a vaguely engineering-smelling quality to it, because its currently just two groups shouting at eachother and handwaving criticism away.

If you actually deal with AI generated problems, I love it, please make a post about it so we have something concrete to point to.

Re: Don't fall into the anti-AI hype

#86
post #2

> 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’ve written plenty of open source and I’m glad it’s going into the great training models that help everyone out.

I love AI and pay for four services and will never program without AI again.

It pleases me that my projects might be helping out.

Re: Don't fall into the anti-AI hype

#87
post #2

> 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.

> As a programmer, I want to write more open source than ever, now.

I believe open source will become a bit less relevant in it’s current form, as solution/project tailored libraries/frameworks can be generated in a few hours with LLMs.

Re: Don't fall into the anti-AI hype

#88
post #2

> 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.

Then why open source something in the first place? The entire point is to make it public, for anyone to use however is useful to him or her, and often to publicly collaborate on a project together.

If I made something open source, you can train your LLM on it as much as you want. I'm glad my open source work is useful to you.

Re: Don't fall into the anti-AI hype

#89
post #6

The “anti-AU hype” phrase oversimplifies what’s playing out at the moment. On the tech side, while things are a bit rough around the edges still the tech is very useful and isn’t going away. I honestly don’t see much disagreement there. The concern mostly comes from the business side… that for all the usefulness on the tech there is no clearly viable path that financially supports everything that’s going on. It’s a n…

People said the exact same thing about (numbers from memory, might be off): - when Google paid $1 bil for YouTube - when Facebook paid $1 bil for Instagram - when Facebook paid $1 bil for WhatsApp The same thing - these 3 companies make no money, and have no path to making money, and that the price paid was crazy and decoupled from any economics. Yet now, in hindsight, they look like brilliant business decisions.

There’s no comparison to what’s going on now vs those examples. Not even remotely similar.

Re: Don't fall into the anti-AI hype

#90
post #2

> 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.

No, you're absolutely right.

LLMs are labor theft on an industrial scale.

I spent 10 years writing open source, I haven't touched it in the last 2. I wrote for multiple reasons none of which any longer apply:

- I believe every software project should have an open source alternative. But writing open source now means useful patterns can be extracted and incorporated into closed source versions _mechanically_ and with plausible deniability. It's ironically worse if you write useful comments.

- I enjoyed the community aspect of building something bigger than one person can accomplish. But LLMs are trained on the whole history and potentially forum posts / chat logs / emails which went into designing the SW too. With sufficiently advanced models, they effectively use my work to create a simulation of myself and other devs.

- I believe people (not just devs) should own the product they build (an even stronger protection of workers against exploitation than copyright). Now our past work is being used to replace us in the future without any compensation.

- I did it to get credit. Even though it was a small motivation compared to the rest, I enjoyed everyone knowing what I accomplished and I used it during job interviews. If somebody used my work, my name was attached to it. With LLMs, anyone can launder it and nobody knows how useful my work was.

- (not solely LLM related) I believed better technology improves the world and quality of life around me. Now I see it as a tool - neutral - to be used by anyone for both good and bad purposes.

Here's[0] a comment where I described why it's theft based on how LLMs work. I call it higher order plagiarism. I haven't seen this argument made by other people, it might be useful for arguing about those who want to legalize this.

In fact, I wonder if this argument has been made in court and whether the lawyers understand LLMs enough to make it.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46187330

Post reply on HN