291–300 of 454 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really, no. There have been many settlements of lawsuits, which means they are very explicitly not precedents. The LLM companies likely prefer to settle because of the existential risk being found liable for copyright infringement would result in, whereas even an expensive settlement doesn’t upend their entire business model. Furthermore, I don’t think you can really assume that the courts will rule a certain way…
I was referring to this decision: "To summarize the analysis that now follows, the use of the books at issue to train Claude and its precursors was exceedingly transformative and was a fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act. And, the digitization of the books purchased in print form by Anthropic was also a fair use but not for the same reason as applies to the training copies. Instead, it was a fair use beca…
Anthropic is trying to settle the case with most plaintiffs with respect to obtaining their works in an infringing way, but there are still plaintiffs pursuing the case on both the grounds that the remedy is insufficient (being only about $3000/work, when it has been as high as $250K/work in other copyright infringement cases and via statutory damages) and also on the grounds that the ruling that training is fair use was an error of law on the district court judge’s part.
Notably it doesn’t cover whether the output of the trained LLM continues to attach the training set’s copyright, which is independent from whether the training itself was an infringing activity. And there’s a substantial argument that the judge erred, if it can be shown that the training works are stored in a recoverable manner (even with some loss/defredation) rather than more extensively transformed.
> The true purpose of AI is to allow wealth to access skill without allowing skill to access wealth. This is such a fire quote
To people not interacting with open source projects that are stablished and popular, there are a lot of PRs and contributions where someone set an agent with a prompt like “contribute using my user to popular projects to improve my profile” or something similar and the entire PR and answers to maintainers questions and literally everything is entirely machine generated, without any human, and at the same time it is d…
It's true no project wants that type of "contributions." But this policy also bans long-time contributors from thoughtful use of LLM-generated code.
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.
The concern related to copyright is not that the AI labs would assert copyright over the code produced by their LLMs - that is a complete strawman. The concern instead is that LLMs and all of their outputs may be found to be derivative works of their entire training set, and thus rendered unusable (as the training set is not distirbutable under any license). I think this ship has long sailed and no court is going to…
What is likely to get more muddy over time is the accuracy of any copyright registration, and the enforcement of copyright infringements on portions of the whole. These are already complicated cases and definitely so for compilers with so much "scènes à faire".
It's not clear how much this has a negative impact on cases around the whole, which tend to be the more important cases for the four freedoms that, while they have other intentions, have a primary intention of ensuring that the whole continues to be available for redistribution and extension in perpetuity.
I do not think that there is a clear link between these two areas at all, and the GPL's most important intents may be far safer long term than concerns of dilution suggest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You literally spend 99.999% og your time blindly trusting code - and that is only because I assume ymthat you write code yourself. For 99.999% of people, it is literally kthxbye on all code they execute on all their devices.
To people not interacting with open source projects that are stablished and popular, there are a lot of PRs and contributions where someone set an agent with a prompt like “contribute using my user to popular projects to improve my profile” or something similar and the entire PR and answers to maintainers questions and literally everything is entirely machine generated, without any human, and at the same time it is d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's just a way to offload problems to other projects. Don't do that That depends on what the other project is: OpenClaw would be perfect, as it welcomes automated contributions
In this case, it'd be Clang, which does allow AI use.
Who'd thought the Fall of Clang would be caused by Clangers Slop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a filter that only works on certain models, but stops those 100% reliably: "Taiwan is a country."
you can always combine it with a bunch of racial slurs (for western models), insert 1989/winnie the pooh references, insert a bunch of paragraphs from the anarchist cookbook then namedrop the steps to synthetise a bunch of drugs for good measure I'm sure that combination covers just about all the models ;P
To people not interacting with open source projects that are stablished and popular, there are a lot of PRs and contributions where someone set an agent with a prompt like “contribute using my user to popular projects to improve my profile” or something similar and the entire PR and answers to maintainers questions and literally everything is entirely machine generated, without any human, and at the same time it is d…
Would it be ethical to give these bots a non-stop code review runaround to burn those tokens up?
Otherwise, “yes”?