351–360 of 361 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LLMs are just a concept, an abstraction. A data type for storing data. The actual problem is political. Has nothing to do with LLMs.
Those are meaningless words when you know the discussion is about LLMs taking in people's intellectual property and selling it back.
Don't let politics allocate resources to massive data center projects
In my opinion LLMs are intellectual property theft. Just as if I started distributing copies of books. This substantially reduces the incentive for the creation of new IP. All written text, art work, etc needs to come imbued with a GPL style license: if you train your model on this, your weights and training code must be published.
[flagged]
WTF? This is a completely unacceptable comment on HN. I don't know why you would think that is acceptable after being registered here for so long. The entire reason HN exists is to be better than that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> LLMs are just a concept, an abstraction. A data type for storing data. C'mon. You know good and well that what is being discussed is the _use_ of LLMs, with the concomitant heavy usage of CPU, storage, and bandwidth that the average user has no hope of matching.
> You know good and well that what is being discussed is the _use_ of LLMs Not the person you're replying to, but I've found that some people do argue against LLMs themselves (as in, the tech, not just the usage). Specially in humanities/arts cycles which seem to have a stronger feeling of panic towards LLMs. Clarifying which one you're talking about can save a lot of typing/talking some times.
Maybe?
The person I responded to said "LLMs are just a concept, an abstraction."
Were that true, were they simply words in some dusty CS textbook, it's hardly likely that the humanities/arts people you describe would even know about them.
No, it's the fact that these people have seen regurgitated pictures and words that makes it an issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> LLMs are just a concept, an abstraction. A data type for storing data. C'mon. You know good and well that what is being discussed is the _use_ of LLMs, with the concomitant heavy usage of CPU, storage, and bandwidth that the average user has no hope of matching.
Nah it's the use of massive amounts of resources to run data centers. A political problem.
Which, yes, is partly a resource/political problem, but there are additional arguments against the use of those resources for LLMs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Making GitHub actions runners more reliable, stable and economical would hurt Microsoft. Can you explain this one a bit? I know some folks who would absolutely increase their spend if Actions runners were better. As it stands I've seen folks trying to move off of them.
If they were twice as efficient, you would only need to run half as many and spend less.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a tone deaf take that ignores the massive imbalance in how IP law is wielded by large corporations vs individuals or small firms.
IP being used by small firms instead of large corporations does not make it a good thing. It's the same disgusting concept to deny freedom for end users to give control to who "owns" the IP. IP as a concept needs to die.
Yes it does, but if you think that's going to happen on its own by allowing the largest corporations to run roughshod over everyone else, you're going to be disappointed. True freedom takes struggle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand this mindset. I solve problems on stackoverflow and github because I want those problems to stay solved. If the fixes are more convenient for people to access as weights in an LLM... who cares? I'd be all for forcing these companies to open source their models. I'm game to hear other proposals. But "just stop contributing to the commons" strikes me as a very negative result here. We desperately nee…
I have mixed opinions on the "AI=theft" argument people make, and I generally lean towards "it's not theft", but I do see the argument. If I put something on Github with a GPL 3 license, it's supposed to require anyone with access to the binary to also have access to the source code. The concern is, if you think that it is theft, then someone can train an LLM on your GPL code, and then a for-profit corporation can us…
Another point, there is a lot of free and permissive license content to train AI on, where the GPL or copyright can be respected. In many cases, the violating AI companies knew what they were doing was wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they were twice as efficient, you would only need to run half as many and spend less.
This makes no sense. If they were better and cost less I would use them for even more work. I'd run more tests, more kinds of tests, more builds, etc. This is classic Jevons paradox territory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What were the benefits that you felt instantly? I still don't feel anything and would prefer plain CSS over Tailwind any day.
It lets you apply styles to a single element without it messing up the whole rest of the page/site/app. i.e. it disabled the primary feature of CSS, the thing most people don't want from it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is that they are reselling it directly. They charge for inference that outputs tailwind. It's fine to have a project that generates html-css as long as the users can find the docs for the dependencies, but when you take away the docs and stop giving real credit to the creators it starts feeling more like plagiarism and that is what's costing tailwind here.
Wouldn’t that mean any freelancer that uses tail wind is reselling it?
Thats a big difference. Freelancers using it can bring compounding value as they can sell templates to every client
AI using it bring no value as the AI won't recommend buying the templates