Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn’t help your case that your response is to say “well I’ll just hide my use.” That’s fraud.
No.
Yes.
Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
221–230 of 611 posts
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Don’t get mad at people for doing something unethical or immoral, or they’ll do something unethical or immoral!” Disabling attribution of LLM-generated code is fraud, because you’re saying you wrote the code. Of course that fits right in with the use of an LLM to generate code in the first place, since what it’s actually doing is regurgitating its inputs stripped of any license and copyright notice.
I'm very certain that this is not fraud, across multiple legal systems, both roman and common law. In both cases fraud requires a person is deprived of a material good. Neither the defrauded person or their material loss is present in this case. Maybe there is a oddball legal system somewhere in the world where fraud is something entirely different, but i doubt it. "Fraud", just like "Decorator Pattern" is a well est…
It is misrepresentation for gain, that gain does not need to be monetary to be material. For example, it can be reputational.
It also is copyright infringement, because what the LLM “generates” are actually portions of its training set, which were covered by copyright. Just passing through an LLM does not remove that copyright from that work.
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, so you didn't respond to any of my rebuttals — like the double standard between anti-AI and pro-AI claims, one of which gets to make claims based on cherry-picked anecdotes, and the other which must produce rigorous studies — you're just going to insult me/my work. Cool. > Your analysis was so thorough, rigorous, and objective, that you couldn't be bothered to write it yourself. Do you genuinely believe an arti…
> like the double standard between anti-AI and pro-AI claims, one of which gets to make claims based on cherry-picked anecdotes, and the other which must produce rigorous studies This statement is honestly so ridiculous that I felt it didn't warrant a direct response, but here's one anyway: AI enthusiasts have been proudly proclaiming for literal years that AI makes them 10x as productive based on cherry-picked anecd…
Also.
> This statement is honestly so ridiculous that I felt it didn't warrant a direct response, but here's one anyway: AI enthusiasts have been proudly proclaiming for literal years that AI makes them 10x as productive based on cherry-picked anecdotes with zero empirical evidence to back it up.
Let's go back to remedial classes on this one.
"I have found that [tool] has made me more effective" is what we call lived experience. It is an "i" statement communicating something about the person’s life. It does not require evidence by default, and you are a crazy person if you call bullshit without good reason, because many "I" statements are epistemically justified in ways that can't be empirically demonstrated or require tacit knowledge.
"[tool] has been buggier since [change]" is a falsifiable claim; you need to actually provide evidence for believing it, and what I'm showing is literally that there isn't any.
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#224Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#225Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not the only thing that matters. The provenance of the code also matters enormously, specifically whether the person contributing it actually has the right to do so. If I contributed code to an Open Source project behind my old employer’s back, that would have been bad, because that code was owned by them and not me, even if I wrote it on my own time using my own equipment, because of the contract I signed wit…
"LLM produced licensed code and person contributed it" is indistinguishable from "person contributed licensed code". The LLM is irrelevant. Result is the same as if they had copy pasted it.
Yes, exactly.
Unfortunately, a large number of people are being told—and here, you can see many who believe it—that the output of an LLM either carries no copyright or is copyright by the one prompting it. In other words, even right here on Hacker News it’s widely believed that LLMs “launder” copyright.
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not the only thing that matters. The provenance of the code also matters enormously, specifically whether the person contributing it actually has the right to do so. If I contributed code to an Open Source project behind my old employer’s back, that would have been bad, because that code was owned by them and not me, even if I wrote it on my own time using my own equipment, because of the contract I signed wit…
[flagged]
The Fortune 10 company that I spent decades at and retired from just a couple years ago noticed this issue immediately and issued a blanket ban on the use of these tools for the company’s own code that to my knowledge has not been rescinded. (They also started developing their own coding-specific LLM, training solely on code they owned, around the same time.)
You might consider that there is a very large incentive by the large and public players in this market to promote the idea that this is not true, that they consider themselves large and powerful enough to actually flout the law, and that they plan to use the argument that enforcement will be too damaging to the economy to make their view the “new normal.”
This playbook has been run before, by Uber and Lyft, by AirBnB, by Tesla with “FSD,” and so on. It’s very clearly the approach being taken.
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#228LLMs don't create bugs, people do
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
"LLM produced licensed code and person contributed it" is indistinguishable from "person contributed licensed code". The LLM is irrelevant. Result is the same as if they had copy pasted it.
Yes, exactly. Unfortunately, a large number of people are being told—and here, you can see many who believe it—that the output of an LLM either carries no copyright or is copyright by the one prompting it. In other words, even right here on Hacker News it’s widely believed that LLMs “launder” copyright.
Irrelevant either way. It's your name on the commit, and the code either infringes or it does not. Whether an LLM was used is immaterial.
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The Fortune 10 company that I spent decades at and retired from just a couple years ago noticed this issue immediately and issued a blanket ban on the use of these tools for the company’s own code that to my knowledge has not been rescinded. (They also started developing their own coding-specific LLM, training solely on code they owned, around the same time.) You might consider that there is a very large incentive by…
[flagged]