Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Changing how we develop Ladybird

ladybird.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 602 posts

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#561

Post by RattlesnakeJake »

Klonoar wrote: post #455
lucideer wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your initial post on class solidarity was extremely reasonable (even if I disagreed with it - see my comment above) but to follow it up with a post describing castes in a non-negative light is wild.

In hindsight, the word "caste" is too heavily loaded and I should have chosen a different term. Sorry for the shit choice. It's not meant to be taken negatively, and is purely a term that I was choosing to represent "hey, you all need to consider better coordinating/representing/holding the line as a group".

"Guild" might have been a better choice :)

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#562

Post by [deleted] »

adampunk wrote: post #560
jeremyjh wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It required reading comprehension skills. It is simply a fact that most commits are small - that is the nature of that kind of project. I looked at the commit history. It still takes a lot of work and it is valuable, but it has very different review requirements.

Wow you’re on a whole roll today! Ok, how come your little comprehension examination didn’t grapple with the main point: that they said they could not have made the changes they merged in themselves? Surely pointing out that the commits were small cuts AGAINST your whole argument. For a more complex project where vibe slop might not be appropriate (again, wild thing to say), the potential input from outside is more v…

[deleted]

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#563

Post by jatora »

nunez wrote: post #388
jatora wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also: I liked a song and it was sonos. I unliked it after discovering. I feel so stupid, so often. This is asinine. Keep depriving yourself of things you enjoy I guess?

Every like to an AI-generated work is (literally!) one more data point in support of record labels dropping human artists for AI artists that will do what they want, perform where they want, and give all of their profits back to the label. Movie studios are "signing" AI artists from AI studios for massive dollars; this is happening. Maybe you don't care, but music is beautiful and difficult, and I really enjoy hearin…

I dont think AI music proliferation is in favor of music studios at all, hence why they want to crush it by all means necessary. You should question your stance when you find yourself on the same side as the MPAA/RIAA/etc.

I am in favor of being able to find music I like, with the least friction possible, without fueling the legacy music industry that is inflated far beyond reasonability.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#564

Post by jatora »

tejohnso wrote: post #346
wussboy wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps knowing a human with talent worked on it, putting some small part of themselves and their lived experience into the music has value to them? If so, then their actions make complete sense.

Human created music might have value to them, but it doesn't mean that the AI song was valueless. They admit they enjoyed it. So it doesn't make sense in terms of it not having value. I wouldn't say it's asinine though. People reject creative output out of personal protest against the creator. Someone might love a movie only to refuse to ever watch it again because they found out the director was accused of something…

True, asinine was too strong a critique. I am just not in favor of emotional decision making where it can be helped. I can despise Tom Cruise as a person while still enjoying many of his movies. I know that some can't do that. I have always detached the creators from the art and that makes AI slot right in for me.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#565

Post by TalkingCodeMonk »

gregoriol wrote: post #553
TalkingCodeMonk wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the solution is for FOSS developers to pay large sums of money to AI companies, to solve the problem that the AI companies created, for profit? ... and you typed this out as though extorting charities were a solution, instead of a grotesquely immoral and unethical systemic failure?

So 50 years ago people who created calculators were at fault for people not calculating from memory? or 100 years ago people who created engines were at fault for people not doing manual labor anymore?

Interesting. I don't remember calculators or engines being required to solve the problems they created... nor monthly subscription fees to maintain protection from those problems... nor the companies responsible profiting off the amplification of labor, cost, time, and effort inflicted on non-profits; nothing remotely similar to the problems AI companies have forced on FOSS.

Perhaps you could provide some examples?

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#566

Post by jatora »

sodapopcan wrote: post #344
jatora wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also: I liked a song and it was sonos. I unliked it after discovering. I feel so stupid, so often. This is asinine. Keep depriving yourself of things you enjoy I guess?

It's not asinine at all. Context matters in art. Otherwise, more songs exist that I would probably really like than I will ever hear, so I'm going to focus on the human-made ones. Besides, part of the joy of music extends beyond listening. For many people, myself included, if we feel really connected to a song we like to learn about the people who created it.

Context doesnt matter in all art. Sunset, aurora borealis, waterfall, clear night skies, etc. These are devoid of a creator and have beauty nonetheless. While they aren't "art", they evoke the exact same brain centers, which means the creator can be factored out of our enjoyment of external stimuli. And you can follow that chain of reasoning to a more rational stance on AI and art in general.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#567

Post by Marsymars »

6510 wrote: post #551
rickydroll wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have seen some homeowners who shouldn't own a screwdriver or a hammer try to do minor electrical work. It was not pretty. I've often thought that it would make sense to have a DIY electrician's certificate, proving that you know how to do basic home wiring, such as outlets, switches, ceiling lamps, basic solar (DC and AC), installing new wire, load calculations, and connecting to breakers in a service panel I have…

In the Netherlands anyone may do the wiring of their house themselves but if it is a substantial modification (or an entire installation) a certified electrician has to sign off on it. They are not likely to stick their neck out for any funny business. That said, I've seen plenty of work from experienced certified electricians that was complete garbage. Not just a few things, more than half their work. Things like, t…

You've got romex in conduit?

I'm not an electrician, just a DIY enthusiast (and the parent commenter) - but in North American construction, romex in conduit is basically unheard of in residential builds - it's stapled to the framing during construction, so once you cut wire short, you've immediately put yourself in a pickle.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#568

Post by InfiniteRand »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #540
Fraterkes wrote: post #66

I've been looking a lot at Godot (another big open source project) PRs lately, and there's been kind of a surge of wholy ai-generated PRs (both code and description). This is agains project-policy, so people creating these PRs usually get mildly told off. What's surprising is that while many submitters take that fairly well, some people get really indignant, essentially calling the maintainers ungrateful. It's kinda…

> there's no inherent value in producing a big lump of code I dunno. If that lump of code makes the program do things it wasn't doing before, I'd say there's a lot of value in it. We can definitely scrutinize the code's quality but there's no way anyone can argue with working code that makes the program better or more featureful than it was before.

Code that works but is unmaintainable is a burden on a project, that being said with open source, you can always fork the code, add your code, and let people decide

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#569

Post by InfiniteRand »

CodeCompost wrote: post #278
cpcallen wrote: post #42

On the one hand, if you grew up in the baazzar, moving to the cathedral might feel like the "death of open source" even if it is really just a return to an earlier way of working. On the other hand, while not accepting external code contributions will certainly improve their security posture it will also make it more difficult to identify who to invite to join the priesthood.

> it more difficult to identify who to invite to join the priesthood. How about this. Somebody forks the project and submits their patches to the fork . If the fork is successful (there are users actively using it), upstream can selectively go fish for the patches themselves. The maintainer of the fork eventually gets recognized. Not ideal, I know, but building a reputation is meant to take time.

This is also an option with AI patches, if your AI contribution is good enough, let it get proven in use, and then it can be considered naturally as the developers of the original project look at what's going on with similar projects.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#570

Post by sodapopcan »

jatora wrote: post #566
sodapopcan wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not asinine at all. Context matters in art. Otherwise, more songs exist that I would probably really like than I will ever hear, so I'm going to focus on the human-made ones. Besides, part of the joy of music extends beyond listening. For many people, myself included, if we feel really connected to a song we like to learn about the people who created it.

Context doesnt matter in all art. Sunset, aurora borealis, waterfall, clear night skies, etc. These are devoid of a creator and have beauty nonetheless. While they aren't "art", they evoke the exact same brain centers, which means the creator can be factored out of our enjoyment of external stimuli. And you can follow that chain of reasoning to a more rational stance on AI and art in general.

> Context doesnt matter in all art. Sunset, aurora borealis, waterfall, clear night skies, etc. These are devoid of a creator and have beauty nonetheless.

I'm sure the religious fundamentalists would have something to say about that XD I'm not one, though, but I don't much appreciate the framing of needing a more "rational" stance here as it kind of signals bad faith to me. There is nothing emotional about worrying about artists' livelihood which has already been under attack for decades before LLMs existed. I'm not saying that one HAS to derive (additional) enjoyment from the presence of a creator. I listen to plenty of human-produced music where I don't care about the artist but these are always songs that I listen to for a short period of time then never think about again. And of course this goes way beyond just who the creator is as a person, it's also about what they inflict into the art itself: the unique vocal inflections, odd ways someone play's an instrument, how they perform it... but that's getting more into this than I meant to when I started typing what I thought would be two sentences, lol.

Anyway, I'm also not saying that people can't enjoy generated output, I'm just not going to support it. Especially since there is still always a person behind it who is maybe going to benefit from people listening to it. No thank you.

Post reply on HN