201–210 of 397 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, your claim is "LLM generated code is not copyrighted." His claim is "LLM generated code is eligible for copyright."
For those wondering what the difference is: consider what happens when an LLM regurgitates its training data. It's copyrighted... but not by the person who generated it.
Oracle, the law firm with a tech business attached, probably wants to retain the option to sue other people for AI-washing their proprietary code, and that doesn't work if they're also publicly accepting AI contributions to their code with no apparent concern for the provenance of it. The tech business would probably tell them this isn't going to be a needle they are going to be able to successfully thread, but the l…
Makes sense, but they take an anti-AI stand, which I find good no matter for which reason they do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The flaw in the analogy is that oracle is made of people. It's not a lawnmower, it's a group of people with human motivations and human thoughts. It's true they don't HATE people, but it's also true they absolutely have no conscience in negotiations and have zero concern about relationships.
He's talking about the owner of Oracle, not the people who work there. It doesn't matter how many smart and talented real humans work at Oracle, the guy running it acts like a fleshy paperclip optimizer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The flaw in the analogy is that oracle is made of people. It's not a lawnmower, it's a group of people with human motivations and human thoughts. It's true they don't HATE people, but it's also true they absolutely have no conscience in negotiations and have zero concern about relationships.
The original was not even about Oracle the corporation, it was about understanding the psychology of Larry Ellison specifically.
Oracle, the law firm with a tech business attached, probably wants to retain the option to sue other people for AI-washing their proprietary code, and that doesn't work if they're also publicly accepting AI contributions to their code with no apparent concern for the provenance of it. The tech business would probably tell them this isn't going to be a needle they are going to be able to successfully thread, but the l…
Makes sense, but they take an anti-AI stand, which I find good no matter for which reason they do that.
[1] https://www.cio.com/article/4125103/oracle-may-slash-up-to-3...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You lay out my words in different order and claim I’m not correct.
No, your claim is "LLM generated code is not copyrighted." His claim is "LLM generated code is eligible for copyright."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Do not fall into the trap of anthropomorphizing Larry Ellison. You need to think of Larry Ellison the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn - you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think 'oh, the lawnmower hates me' - lawnmower doesn't give a * about you, the lawnmower can't hate you. Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmo…
Who does this metaphor serve? To me it seems to try to legitimize the actions as a force of nature.
The lawnmower exists, you might disagree, but it’s not your lawnmower, you can’t uncreate it. But you can and should take care never to put your hand near it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Do not fall into the trap of anthropomorphizing Larry Ellison. You need to think of Larry Ellison the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn - you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think 'oh, the lawnmower hates me' - lawnmower doesn't give a * about you, the lawnmower can't hate you. Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmo…
Who does this metaphor serve? To me it seems to try to legitimize the actions as a force of nature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Do not fall into the trap of anthropomorphizing Larry Ellison. You need to think of Larry Ellison the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn - you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think 'oh, the lawnmower hates me' - lawnmower doesn't give a * about you, the lawnmower can't hate you. Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmo…
Who does this metaphor serve? To me it seems to try to legitimize the actions as a force of nature.
y’all seem to be missing the fact that Java is a mature product. it has left the “move fast and break things” era of it’s development. code is a liability, and they likely have more to lose than gain by allowing AI contribution.
Oracle Java is also basically effectively in KTLO mode. The biggest use of Java currently is Android, and Google is on a path to migrate to Fuchsia eventually. The second biggest use is Apache Spark/Kafka, but with LLMs now, you can pretty much re implement all of that functionality in pure C. They just want a legal angle, since this is how they make most of their money.
Spark is written in Scala, precisely because distributed systems are best modelled as a set of pure functions with minimal references to state. This is also why part of the reason why it's ascending successor, Polars Cloud, is written in a functional language, Rust, rather than C.
Android development is also increasingly being monopolized by Kotlin, not Java.