Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nice to know we've got slurs for LLMs and their users now. Very nice.
It's not a slur, clankers ain't people.
If corporations can be people, there is no reason why AI can't be considered a person.
Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
551–560 of 611 posts
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#552Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Selling a toaster has an implicit warranty of merchantability. Society expects that if you sell me something, it should have certain promises. Yes, there’s no monetary exchange here, the work is given gratis, but there’s still a relationship and an interaction here and I think it is clear some people, like myself, believe that there are implied expectations. No there isn't. Pay money and there's a contract. Anythin…
If you induce someone to expend resources you can have liability even if those resources are not a payment to you. You can’t license your way out liability if you advertised, formally or informally, certain features and functionality that cause people to act on that advertisement. It’s called reliance interest. It’s an actual legal principle with case law supporting it.
full-disclosure: i skimmed the wiki on reliance damages, and concluded you're wrong. it goes something like this: reliance damages require you produce a contract, or some other evidence, that demonstrates you were promised some thing you did not receive, or some outcome you didn't experience. essentially, your claim is: a README file has more standing, in a court of law, than the LICENSE file sitting next to it at the root. cute, but preposterous.
anyway, to the gist of this reply: you disagree with the license conditions. an important, but rather obvious, observation to be had is that, the rights the LICENSE offers, are contingent on your acceptance of the LICENSE conditions. one cannot be had without the other.
the LICENSE is real, it's a contract, and is in effect the moment you obtain a copy.
> You can’t [un-]license your way out [of the] liability if you [copied], formally or informally, [wares] that [you have no rights to, because you disagreed with its license conditions].
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#553Earlier quoted context omitted.
No there isn't.
I just cannot understand this logic, can you explain why there is no responsibility whatsoever on the part of a maintainer towards the users? Selling a toaster has an implicit warranty of merchantability. Society expects that if you sell me something, it should have certain promises. Yes, there’s no monetary exchange here, the work is given gratis, but there’s still a relationship and an interaction here and I think…
it would save everyone a lot of hurt feelings, and unexpected surprises, if access to open source software was treated as a privilege, instead of treating it like a right
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#554Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Selling a toaster has an implicit warranty of merchantability. Society expects that if you sell me something, it should have certain promises. Yes, there’s no monetary exchange here, the work is given gratis, but there’s still a relationship and an interaction here and I think it is clear some people, like myself, believe that there are implied expectations. No there isn't. Pay money and there's a contract. Anythin…
If you induce someone to expend resources you can have liability even if those resources are not a payment to you. You can’t license your way out liability if you advertised, formally or informally, certain features and functionality that cause people to act on that advertisement. It’s called reliance interest. It’s an actual legal principle with case law supporting it.
Fortunately this is completely wrong.
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#555Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a long-time open-source maintainer, I find all the second-guessing and armchair psychoanalysis here (not just in this comment, all over HN) about Tridge's motivations, state of mind, and so on incredibly off-putting. Tridge doesn't owe anyone anything as far as rsync is concerned. Yet he is spending his time maintaining it, only to be attacked for his efforts. To respond to the specific technical point, there real…
> As a long-time open-source maintainer, I find all the second-guessing and armchair psychoanalysis here (not just in this comment, all over HN) about Tridge's motivations, state of mind, and so on incredibly off-putting. I agree that the entire episode is obscene, but I am also unsure of what to do here either. On some level this is the same problem movie stars run into. I agree that guessing or waxing about the mot…
> I also think that there is a modest duty owed to users to explain things.
> I fundamentally disagree that maintainers owe users nothing.
> I strongly believe that when you create something for people to use that there’s an implicit social contract about how to go about doing certain things.
do you realize how unhinged this all reads like?
there is no duty. nothing is owed to no one. there is no implicit anything. this is all happening in your head. you are making up things that don't exist. the social contract is not a real thing either. the only contract you can have with the author of rsync is the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 3, and then, only when you get a copy of rsync.
> getting frustrated and then changing the project to delete the entire system is a crime
boop: strawman argument — you have been disqualified
> Is any business built on top of rsync going to donate their money in a sustainable manner?
does it matter? do you have an invoice for rsync?
the author wrote it themselves, he is retired, and sailing. unless google is buying him a new boat, i doubt he gives a crap what anyone has to offer.
truly obscene is the fabricated idea that you are owed anything after downloading code from github.
> I am also unsure of what to do here either.
touch grass?
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#556Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I hated my users I wouldn’t work on Homebrew for 17 years. I do hate a small subset of hostile users. The selling metaphor doesn’t work. Homebrew is not sold and its license, effectively a EULA, discloses all warranties because it is not sold and we are not paid a wage to build it. I have also built a bunch of proprietary software for money where my obligations are different. I also enjoy that and my responsibilit…
Thanks for chiming in. I appreciate that this is the position of you and a large chunk of folks, but I don’t think I’m ever going to fully understand it. If you don’t mind me probing a little further, what is the motivation to work on it? > they can fork it I get that, but I also think it is too pat a narrative at the same time. I think the success of the project is both a testament to the effort that you and the Hom…
kelnos beat me to it but: because working on it is fun. I don't think most people in our industry will understand decade+ open source maintainers of large projects and that's fine. I don't understand how designers can do what they do either. I would say that those of us who stick around and don't burn out quickly tend to share my ideas of "owe nothing" and "have fun" much more than "I must make sure I am always responsible and responsive to my users desires" who tend to seem permanently stressed before burning out.
I use my words carefully: I don't "owe" my users anything but that doesn't mean I don't "give" them anything. It's charity as opposed to taxes; I do so freely and on my own terms rather than obligation.
On forking: yes, it's a lot of work and forking would also be a lot of work. That's exactly the point. Lots of people over the years could have forked Homebrew but no meaningful forks have taken off because those who are most dissatisfied with our decisions are least willing to do the work to solve these problems.
Hope that clarifies. Thanks for the polite discussion :)
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#557Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a long-time open-source maintainer, I find all the second-guessing and armchair psychoanalysis here (not just in this comment, all over HN) about Tridge's motivations, state of mind, and so on incredibly off-putting. Tridge doesn't owe anyone anything as far as rsync is concerned. Yet he is spending his time maintaining it, only to be attacked for his efforts. To respond to the specific technical point, there real…
> Yet he is spending his time maintaining it, only to be attacked for his efforts. Which, in general, is totally legit. Doing something voluntarily doesn't relieve you from criticism if what you are doing isn't good.
Yes, I agree. Voluntarily forming a mob to flood issue trackers with garbage shouldn't relieve the mob members from receiving criticism.
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#558Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah yeah the usual "look, these anti-ai people are so EMOTIONAL and HYSTERICAL while we're very logical and fact-based", I've lurked for a while so I read that one plenty of times. OP spends a lot of time time doing statistics, but when another person replies "hey, 2 claude-authored features is not really statistically significant", the author literally agrees and says "my point was to show that you can't draw concl…
If someone spouts untruths, that is a failing of theirs. Talking about how there's emotions of theirs that back this promulgation of untruths, emotions which you could understand if you tried, is putting the cart before the horse. First express things that are not trivially false, then I will try to understand what you mean by it.
You keep trying to twist what I'm saying into "guys you have to be nice to the ai haters and meet them at the middle, even when they insult you :))))". Once again you have this kneejerk reaction to the words "emotions" and "feelings" as if it would make you weak to acknowledge that "humans feeling a certain way act a certain way".
I'll once again have to remind you that all of what I said was just "yeah these guys are really pissed off, here's why they might be" and never once asked any of you to agree with them, or that their conclusions about rsync were right, or anything like that.
You act like "understanding" is only ever a gift/favor you do to someone else. While it's true that in many cases it is, "understanding" can also be something that just helps you and doesn't require interaction or agreement, it's when you think "oh there's no debating with these guys so it's probably not worth it to engage" or "oh these people are talking about X but it looks like the Y underlying issue is the actual problem, so talking about X might be a waste of time".
You completely disregard human emotions as if doing so makes you stronger, but all it does is make you more confused, surprised and angry whenever you're faced with irrational reactions you can't understand.
Now if you decide to interpret all of that as me saying "I am in moral agreement with the dogpiling and the witch hunts shown in that github thread", that is a failing of yours.
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#559Earlier quoted context omitted.
Explain why the metaphor doesn’t operate here? Bonus points, don’t use the word “entitled”.
Why would I need to? Nobody volunteered . In the analogy, you found something on a shelf somewhere and decided to depend on it. The person who put it on the shelf never agreed to support you in that endeavor.
“This is abandonware”
And
“This is maintained and I am the maintainer”
Are different states. 'Maintenance' is not work-free or effortless, so the second sentence is explicitly volunteering to do some non-zero amount of work, right?
I don't see how it can be read any other way, you either have to argue that maintenance isn't work, or that "I am the maintainer" is not volunteering oneself into the role of doing that work.
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#560Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you intentionally misreading my comments? I asked a simple question: What technical concerns could possibly exist if the code is good? I made it very clear I wasn't talking about personal, political, or ethical arguments. > But I do know there’s no sense pretending like they don’t have a point or feigning shock that someone might not have the same view as you do. Where am I feigning shock? Are you reading the rig…
> That's what I can't for the life of me figure out. Bad code is bad code regardless of who is writing it. Adding a disclaimer about how it was written is meaningless. Maybe I was reading too much into this part of your comment. Plenty of folks don’t separate the ethical, political, or moral from the technology. For them using it is condoning it. Like for me, owning a car is contributing to car culture. It might be i…
That's fair. I guess at that point I think adding a label to the repo as opposed to the commit would make more sense to me.