201–210 of 257 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Is not a gift if it was stolen. Yeah, I had a visceral reaction to that statement.
Yet nobody is changing their licenses to exclude AI use. So I assume they are OK with it.
'The only winning move is not to play' - stop contributing to OSS.
> I'm a programmer, and I use automatic programming. The code I generate in this way is mine. My code, my output, my production. I, and you, can be proud. Disagree. So when there is a bug / outage / error, due to "automatic programming" are you ready to be first in line to accept accountability (the LLM cannot be) when it all goes wrong in production? I do not think that would even be enough or whether this would wor…
Replace "LLM" with "IDE" and re-read. The LLM is another tool. Of course tools can't be held responsible, the person wielding the tool is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I draw from this that no-one should be subject to those rules, and we should try to use the AI companies as a wedge to widen that crack. Instead, most people people who claim that their objection is really only consistency, not love for IP spend their time trying to tighten the definitions of fair use, widen the definitions of derivative works, and in general make IP even stronger, which will effect far more than jus…
oh hey, let's have a thought experiment in this world with no IP rules suppose I write a webnovel that I publish for free on the net, and I solicit donations. Kinda like what's happening today anyway. Now suppose I'm not good at marketing, but this other guy is. He takes my webnovel, changes some names, and publishes it online under his name. He is good at social media and marketing, and so makes a killing from donat…
there are two programmers. first is very talented technically, but weak at negotiations, so he earns median pay. second is average technically, but very good at negotiations, and he earns much better.
is it fair?
life is not fair.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
oh hey, let's have a thought experiment in this world with no IP rules suppose I write a webnovel that I publish for free on the net, and I solicit donations. Kinda like what's happening today anyway. Now suppose I'm not good at marketing, but this other guy is. He takes my webnovel, changes some names, and publishes it online under his name. He is good at social media and marketing, and so makes a killing from donat…
let's have another though experiment: there are two programmers. first is very talented technically, but weak at negotiations, so he earns median pay. second is average technically, but very good at negotiations, and he earns much better. is it fair? life is not fair.
> I'm a programmer, and I use automatic programming. The code I generate in this way is mine. My code, my output, my production. I, and you, can be proud. I disagree. The code you wrote is a collaboration with the model you used. To frame it this way, you are taking credit for the work the model did on your behalf. There is a difference between I wrote this code entirely by myself and I wrote the code with a partner.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been doing spec-driven development for the past 2 months, and it's been a game changer (especially with Opus 4.5). Writing a spec is akin to "working backwards" (or future backwards thinking, if you like) -- this is the outcome I want, how do I get there? The process of writing the spec actually exposes the edge cases I didn't think of. It's very much in the same vein as "writing as a tool of thought". Just gett…
My experience with both Opus and GPT-codex is that they both just forget to implement big chunks of specs, unless you give them the means to self-validate their spec conformance. I’m finding myself sometimes spending more time coming up with tooling to enable this, than the actual work.
Try Kiro. It's just an all-round excellent spec-driven IDE.
You can still use Claude Code to implement code from the spec, but Kiro is far better at generating the specs.
p.s. if you don't use Kiro (though I recommend it), there’s a new way too — Yegge’s beads. After you install, prompt Claude Code to `write the plan in epics, stories and tasks in beads`. Opus will -- through tool use -- ensure every bead is implemented. But this is a more high variance approach -- whereas Kiro is much more systematic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...
> There are four essential elements to a charge of criminal copyright infringement. In order to sustain a conviction under section 506(a), the government must demonstrate: (1) that a valid copyright; (2) was infringed by the defendant; (3) willfully; and (4) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain. I think it’s very much an open debate if training a model on publicly available data counts as in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Is not a gift if it was stolen. Yeah, I had a visceral reaction to that statement.
Yet nobody is changing their licenses to exclude AI use. So I assume they are OK with it.
You can have a license that says "NO AI TRAINING EVER" in no uncertain terms and it would mean absolutely nothing because fair use isn't dictated by licenses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Waterfall can work great when: 1/ the focus is long-term both in terms of knowing that she company can take a few years to get the thing live but also that it will be around for many more years, 2/ the people writing the spec and the code are largely the same people. Agile was really pushing to make sure companies could get software live before they died (number 1) and to remedy the anti-pattern that appeared with nu…
No. Agile core is the feedback loop. I can't believe people still don't get it. Feedback from reality is always faster than guessing on the air. Waterfall is never great. The only time when you need something else than Agile is when lives are at stake, you need there formal specifications and rigorous testing. SDD allows better output than traditional programming. It is similar to waterfall in the sense that the mode…
Only if you have no idea what the results will be.
Professional engineering takes parts with specific tolerances, tested for a specific application, using a tried-and-true design, combines them into the solution that other people have already made, and watches it work, exactly as predicted. That's how we can build a skyscraper "the first time" and have it not fall down. We don't need to build 20 tiny versions of a building until we get a working skyscraper.