101–110 of 159 posts
It begins with a prompt directed at Gemini, followed by what appears to be an AI-generated response. Are these actual AI responses or is the developer writing their parting message in a whimsical way? I'm genuinely confused. Help much appreciated!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When are we getting a GPLv4 that's AGPL + no LLM training? This is overdue.
Given Meta's history of torrenting every book it could get its hands on for training, I'm not convinced that the majority of AI companies would respect that license. Maybe if we also had a better way to prove that such code was part of the training set and see a couple of solid legal victories with compensation awarded.
How does "a very small (hence Pico), very simple, yet very secure encryption tool" come to depend on OpenGL, threatening its future on MacOS?
> It's not easy to fix in the code either because it'll require major changes to the GUI library which can get messy, especially since GUIs were never a strength of Go.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given Meta's history of torrenting every book it could get its hands on for training, I'm not convinced that the majority of AI companies would respect that license. Maybe if we also had a better way to prove that such code was part of the training set and see a couple of solid legal victories with compensation awarded.
They're also getting sued for it, and the judge ruled they had no right to torrent those books so now it's just a matter of calculating how many trillions Meta has to pay, then extracting it from them.
The (current) last commend by hakavlad (same as hakavlad on HN perhaps?): @HACKERALERT Your decision may be somewhat irresponsible towards those who donated to the audit. That audit was one year ago. The money didn't go towards the author. The source continues to be available. The author doesn't own you zilch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When are we getting a GPLv4 that's AGPL + no LLM training? This is overdue.
Given Meta's history of torrenting every book it could get its hands on for training, I'm not convinced that the majority of AI companies would respect that license. Maybe if we also had a better way to prove that such code was part of the training set and see a couple of solid legal victories with compensation awarded.
They look like saints when compared to today's companies.
I'm starting to feel kinda old and out of the loop. Could someone please explain the conversational style of this post? It begins with a prompt directed at Gemini, followed by what appears to be an AI-generated response. Are these actual AI responses or is the developer writing their parting message in a whimsical way? I'm genuinely confused. Help much appreciated!
I'm unsure if the post is actually created by Gemini or the developer's imitation. I suspect the latter.
TLDR: Author of an open-source project has a crashout over other people using LLMs for coding, believes that AI will replace all developers, and decides to preemptively give up on software engineering entirely because of that. IMO anyone who understands AI at a technical level will understand that this won't happen. No matter how many parameters, training and compute you throw at it, putting AI in direct charge of an…
The (current) last commend by hakavlad (same as hakavlad on HN perhaps?): @HACKERALERT Your decision may be somewhat irresponsible towards those who donated to the audit. That audit was one year ago. The money didn't go towards the author. The source continues to be available. The author doesn't own you zilch.
Perhaps many would have refused to donate if they knew that the project would be archived in a year. Collecting for audit and then archiving the project is, in a way, a violation of expectations.