161–170 of 284 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A very recent example: https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/pull/14369
...what a remarkable thread.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, training is considered fair use, and output is non-copyrightable / public domain. With many asterix and footnotes, of course.
Don't see how output being public domain makes sense when they could be outputting copyrighted code. Shouldn't the right's extend forward and simply require the LLM code to be deleted?
Those kinds of cases, although they do happen, are exceptional. In a typical output that doesn't not line-for-line resemble a single training input, it is considered a new, but non-copyrightable work.
Nobody has yet to explain how an LLM can be better than a well paid human expert.
> LLMs are especially good at evaluating documents to assess the degree that an LLM assisted their creation!) That's a bold claim. Do they have data to back this up? I'd only have confidence to say this after testing this against multiple LLM outputs, but does this really work for, e.g. the em dash leaderboard of HN or people who tell an LLM to not do these 10 LLM-y writing cliches? I would need to see their reasonin…
I thought about it - a quick way to verify whether something was created with LLM is to feed an LLM half of the text and then let it complete token by token. Every completion, check not just for the next token but the next n-probable tokens. If one of them is the one you have in the text, pick it and continue. This way, I think, you can identify how much the model is "correct" by predicting the text it hasn't yet see…
It kinda works, but is not very reliable and is quite sensitive to which model the text was generated with.
This page has nice explanations:
https://www.pangram.com/blog/why-perplexity-and-burstiness-f...
The "RFD" here stands for "Reason/Request for Decision" or something else? (Request for Decision doesn't have a nice _ring_ on it tbh). I'm aware of RFCs ofc and the respective status changes (draft, review, accepted, rejected) or ADR (Architectural Decision Record) but have not come across the RFD acronym. Google gave several different answers.
Nothing new here. Antirez for once has taken a similar stance on his YouTube video channel which has material on the topic. But it's worthwhile having a document like this publicly available by a company that the tech crowd seems to respect. The "RFD" here stands for "Reason/Request for Decision" or something else? (Request for Decision doesn't have a nice _ring_ on it tbh). I'm aware of RFCs ofc and the respective s…
Cantrill jumps on every bandwagon. When he assisted in cancelling a Node developer (not a native English speaker) over pronouns he was following the Zeitgeist, now "Broadly speaking, LLM use is encouraged at Oxide." He is a long way from Sun.
I didn't know about that incident before starting at Oxide, but if I'd known about it, it absolutely would have attracted me. I've written a large amount of technical content and not once in over a decade have I needed to use he/him pronouns in it. Bryan was 100% correct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember in the very first class I ever took on Web Design the teacher spent an entire semester teaching "first principles" of HTML, CSS and JavaScript by writing it in Notepad. It was only then did she introduce us to the glory that was Adobe Dreamweaver, which (obviously) increased our productivity tenfold.
> glory that was Adobe Dreamweaver Dreamweaver was to web development what ... I just sat here for 5 minutes and I wasn't able to finish that sentence. So I think that's a statement in itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After 25 or so years doing this, I think there are two kinds of developers: craftsmen and practical “does it get the job done” types. I’m the former. The latter seem to be what makes the world go round.
If you've been doing it for that long (about as long as I have), then surely you remember all the times you had to clean up after the "git 'er done" types. I'm not saying they don't have their place, but without us they would still be making the world go round. Only backwards.
It’s lovely to have the time to do that. This time comes once the other type of engineer has shipped the product and turned the money flow on. Both types have their place.