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

Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

blog.codeberg.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 168 posts

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#131

Post by chapel »

saltcured wrote: post #123
arkwin wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see the point you are trying to make, and I'll make a counterpoint to that. When you play the "didn't earn" card, you are really getting nowhere. It's a bad argument. It's putting up the gate, "I feel you didn't work hard enough for X result, but I did, so I must be better" I drive a manual car. Should I hate every automatic car driver? I have a master's degree in cybersecurity; should I shit on everyone who do…

Hiring a great F1 driver does not make a racing team owner a great driver. Some of the people shoveling LLM slop seem to miss that point.

Someone using an LLM to code isn't calling themselves a great coder just because the LLM is writing good code. Being a software engineer/developer (whatever you want to call it) is not defined solely on your ability to write code.

To go back to your point, before the F1 driver (LLM) was hired the owner was the driver, mechanic, and everything else. Now that they have a driver they can focus on all the other roles and just ensure the driver is not crashing.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#132

Post by hananova »

rpdillon wrote: post #111
inigyou wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm saying using those as analogous/similar comparison points displays an absolutely bonkers lack of decorum, nuanced thinking, or "democratic" behaviour and also trivializes those actually horrendous cases. Are they correct ? That should be the most important thing. > More worrisome is I saw this same set of comparisons made over and over in multiple threads. Maybe because they're correct > because people legitima…

Good grief. The question is simply "what is vibecoding?" You're taking the position (without saying so) that any use of AI in coding is banned: from Cursor autocomplete to full omp harness chugging with Fable, whether or not the person has taken decades to learn coding, whether or not the code was reviewed professionally. I suspect the reason you're not saying this is because when you write it out, it's obviously a p…

No, the question is a classic case of jaqing off. Not a single person is in actual doubt which side of the line they fall on.

Your second paragraph is a strawman.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#133

Post by archagon »

arkwin wrote: post #120
lenkite wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Open source developer: I'm going to open source my software so the world can use it for whatever they want! No, you are describing a SPECIFIC License called the The Unlicense: https://opensource.org/license/unlicense This is ONLY ONE such OSS license and does not apply to all OSS.

US courts have ruled (for better or worse) that using code to train LLMs is a transformative piece of work and not subject to the original copyright.

I’m sure that the people making this kind of argument would be quite pissed indeed if I trained an LLM on their proprietary code and used it for my commercial projects.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#134

Post by redsocksfan45 »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #31
TheChaplain wrote: post #4

I don't really see a problem with this decision (or the one regarding crypto), they were voted on by the active members of Codeberg, simply a democratic outcome.

I had a somewhat active GPL/copylefted project on there for 11 months, but I didn't even see a point in signing up as "community member" to become a part of the registered voting community in order to vote ... because from reading the threads around this it was already an indiscriminate pile-on of moralism and judgement and it was clear where things were going to go from day one. Any voices that said anything on the…

[dead]

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#135

Post by duped »

arkwin wrote: post #125
duped wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Developers who use LLMs: You are telling me that you have moral/ethical/practical issues with how I work but I'm going to ignore what you say to justify how I'm not at fault. That's what these replies sound like to me.

The moral/ethical high ground argument just spirals. Oh you drive a car? You should justify that to me. Oh you bought any piece of clothing, tech, etc where it was made in countries with cheap labor and bad labor laws? You should justify that to me. Oh you use electricity? Idk some of that is made via non-renewable resources. Oh you eat meat? So much animal suffering and land is being wasted. I get using an LLM has s…

If someone hangs a 'no cars' sign at the entrance to their private nature path you're not going to think they're saying 'You are not traveling according to the exact rules I have made up in my head about how one should travel, so I'm going to build a wall and hate you'

No, they don't want cars on their path, because cars would be harmful to the environment they're trying to foster.

I'm not asking you to justify your choices. What I'm saying is that you sound like you're deliberately ignoring what other people think as a precondition to justify your choices to yourself.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#137

Post by mynameajeff »

arkwin wrote: post #125
duped wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Developers who use LLMs: You are telling me that you have moral/ethical/practical issues with how I work but I'm going to ignore what you say to justify how I'm not at fault. That's what these replies sound like to me.

The moral/ethical high ground argument just spirals. Oh you drive a car? You should justify that to me. Oh you bought any piece of clothing, tech, etc where it was made in countries with cheap labor and bad labor laws? You should justify that to me. Oh you use electricity? Idk some of that is made via non-renewable resources. Oh you eat meat? So much animal suffering and land is being wasted. I get using an LLM has s…

This is about the kind of code allowed in a place to store code. Your comparisons are obviously nonsensical in relation to the actual topic at hand. If you're a part of the transit community, they have plenty to say about car dependence and its ethics. If you're a part of the fashion community, they have loads to say on fast fashion and its ethics. The list goes on and on. For all them it seems totally reasonable for them to have their own ethical lines within their relevant spaces and communities. But it should be pretty obvious that none them have anything at all to do with Codeberg, or the general discussion of ethics at hand here. I don't see how you have any ability to claim what causes are issues someone cares about or prioritize based on them raising an issue relevant to the actual subject matter.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#138

Post by hananova »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #42
bcye wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article literally says they intend to selectively enforce this rule and not be strict with it?

... and leave it completely up to their own personal judgement on when and how to apply their rules, and on public forums people who asked for more clarity on "boundaries" were called "creeps" and other insults. That's not healthy democratic culture.

Not a single person is unaware if their projects are handwritten or vibe coded. Nobody is actually confused or concerned, you are just jaqing off.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#139

Post by krinchan »

arkwin wrote: post #96
MSFT_Edging wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's less about "earning" and more the attitude and approach to the work. The flippant nature of people expecting the same respect for some piece of work that was churned out by a machine, as someone who understands every part. I know I used "earn" a lot in the last reply, but that was a shorthand for something more complex. A combination of appreciation, discipline, and a common work style. The LLM stuff is being ga…

Hey, thanks for taking the time to reply. And you bring up some good points. I'll be the first person to tell someone I used Claude on this. Hell I make sure it says co-authored by claude on my github projects specifically because I'm not trying to hide the fact that I'm using LLMs. I think you are correct, is not not really an LLM problem as much as its a person problem. But there doesn't seem to be a good way to fi…

The shift here is that up until now output (code, in this case) required a degree of competence. As such, we socialized that being able to put out the code showed a degree of competence. The act of putting together a PR with working tests showed you had a level of knowledge past "I want X to do Y."

Now, you have a lot of people taught that output (a working PR) is competence. They walk around thinking they are competent because they can produce output.

When faced with criticism on working code, they collapse and flail immediately because to admit they can't explain or defend the code is to admit they are not competent. From there you've hit pretty much all of the problems that the rest of the Internet suffers from: cognitive dissonance, digging in because being wrong threatens your constructed identity, constructing echo chambers of AI Influencers peddling the latest prompt, and so on.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#140

Post by rnd0 »

EdiX wrote: post #69
rnd0 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a lawyer, but additionally there's also legal concern about the legality of the training source. How can you verify that the model you're using wasn't trained and therefore incorporates code that is not licensed for sharing. e.g. someone theoretically uploading the shared source windows kernel to github and it being added to copilot. There's no reasonable belief that or similar scenarios cannot happen and does no…

> Not a lawyer, but additionally there's also legal concern about the legality of the training source That's not how copyright works. If you use a pirated copy of photoshop the resulting image is not illegal.

That's apples and oranges; a better analogy would be if you post a video on youtube that you made yourself, with products you're allowed to use, but happen to overlook that copywritten music is on the radio in the background or on the tv.

How many youtube videos have gone dark over bogus copyright claims over the years? And you think people will overlook what's in AI -when there's over a trillion dollars on the table?

Post reply on HN