51–60 of 453 posts
Ofc, it's less fun to accept that many of them are probably bots, but whatever.
The moderating should focus on good user participation, and a reputation to give old users leeway. I'd be as specific as requesting new users to respond as succinctly as possible to avoid AI ranting
The comments are worth it... the full spectrum of personalities and the hottest of takes. 10/10, would recommend to a bored friend.
AI psychosis seems to be on all sides of the debate. We've truly lost our moderate speech and the ability to discuss.
I wonder how they plan to detect it something is LLM generated. I think what this leads to is people just working hard to make their outputs appear human generated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do anti-LLM types expect to be vindicated in an orgy of copyright lawsuits that resets the industry back to 2022? What do people pushing expect to accomplish? You weren’t kidding, huh.
Is it "anti-LLM" or is it anti "here's some code I don't understand that a machine generated for me kthxbye"? Code is not just code, it's also liability and trust.
For 99.999% of people, it is literally kthxbye on all code they execute on all their devices.
It's always fun to see the people throwing fits over this kind of thing. No matter what approach/wording they use, and no matter how hard I try to give them the benefit of the doubt, the mental images my mind forms of these people is always entertaining. Ofc, it's less fun to accept that many of them are probably bots, but whatever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's correct though. You would need 3 extremely low probability events to all occur simultaneously for the concern to actually manifest. 1) Courts reverse their previous decisions and declare LLM generated code as belonging to LLM labs. 2) LLM labs decide to assert their copyright and sue open source projects. 3) They are able to prove that the code was generated by an LLM and not just any LLM but their LLM.
Isn't there also a concern that an LLM may reproduce copyrighted code verbatim (or close enough), and the original author asserts their copyright?
News back then were about intentionally prompting to output known copyrighted material.
The parent comment still stands in my opinion:
When, despite millions of developers using agentic AI already, are these lawsuits supposed to manifest?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's correct though. You would need 3 extremely low probability events to all occur simultaneously for the concern to actually manifest. 1) Courts reverse their previous decisions and declare LLM generated code as belonging to LLM labs. 2) LLM labs decide to assert their copyright and sue open source projects. 3) They are able to prove that the code was generated by an LLM and not just any LLM but their LLM.
Isn't there also a concern that an LLM may reproduce copyrighted code verbatim (or close enough), and the original author asserts their copyright?
It’s a hard balancing act to do. Give in too much randomness and you get non-sensical outputs that are difficult to align. Fit too closely to the training data and the model regurgitates the training data.
And oh, what’s that copyrighted material we never made any agreement to use doing in there?