211–220 of 318 posts
This is great, does it work in the browser via wasm? There’s an emcripten libgit2 out there but the wasm is a little big too be any fun
> You had me at WASM...
What does this mean? Does the OP want us to convert his AI-vibed code to a WASM-compatible build? Does the OP even understand what that entails?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would also be interested. I haven't dug into this at all yet, nor have I tried to optimize the size (or really, anything else). However, the library part will be less than half of this - a lot of code is spent on the CLI specific stuff and would not be part of the library, which is mostly what I care about for the purposes of this project. The CLI part is just to try to prove the point that it actually does what Gi…
Looking at just the `grit` executable, 58 of the top 200 largest file->resulting code sources are from clap-rs' derive functionality i.e. it's the command-line parsing. The #1 largest is, surprisingly, merge_trees[1] which comes in at 183kiB final binary size. There isn't so much code in that file that it seems reasonable, so it's potentially one of the derives in use (Debug being a common culprit for bloat) that's b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm terrified that this somehow seems acceptable to a large group of people. I'm baffled that other IP holders (say those who own valuable pieces of proprietary software, or music, or movies, or even the LLMs themselves) don't think leopards will come eat their faces next. This erosion of IP has to stop, or anyone who does any intellectual work will be absolutely screwed. If that only meant FOSS people, I'd be worrie…
I might even be fine with the loss of IP if everyone lost it.
This is simply plagiarism of GPL-licensed code, and license-washing as well. I can understand working backwards from a test suite, but this literally just reads the original source: https://github.com/gitbutlerapp/grit/blob/main/AGENTS.md#sou... LLM users seem to live in another world where stealing everything that isn't bolted down, and passing it off as their own work, is acceptable.
I'm terrified that this somehow seems acceptable to a large group of people. I'm baffled that other IP holders (say those who own valuable pieces of proprietary software, or music, or movies, or even the LLMs themselves) don't think leopards will come eat their faces next. This erosion of IP has to stop, or anyone who does any intellectual work will be absolutely screwed. If that only meant FOSS people, I'd be worrie…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Git is part of the LLM's training set though, so simply asking it to recreate git in another language is pretty equivalent. Like, you can almost certainly get these LLMs to output gits full source code with some prompting, so there's not that much difference (as much as we like to pretend that AI generated code has no copyright implications)
> Like, you can almost certainly get these LLMs to output gits full source code with some prompting, so there's not that much difference (as much as we like to pretend that AI generated code has no copyright implications) Are you sure? LLMs are in some way a compressed version of their input but it's a pretty lossy compression (arguably this makes them more like a compression algorithm than a compressed version of th…
Granted, these are some of the most widely spread texts, and not codebases, but just fyi: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2601.02671
> For Claude 3.7 Sonnet, we were able to extract four whole books near-verbatim, including two books under copyright in the U.S.: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone and 1984 (Section 4).
> In looking at the code that the LLMs have produced for the project, especially given the pretty massive and widespread architectural changes needed to make the implementation libified and memory safe, we decided that the codebase is not a derivative work that would require carrying forward the GPL license and have decided to release the code under the MIT instead. Hmm. That's going to be interesting.
Well, there's lots of really interesting opinions here from a lot of armchair lawyers. To clarify, my stance on this is that the reimplementation did not copy protected expressions (Jplag reports less than 1.8% max similarity between the codebases), it's done in good faith, and it's what's best for the broader Git ecosystem (assuming Grit even becomes usable, which it's currently not purported to be). From a copyrigh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> translation. It's not technically a translation, it's a re-implementation, with test suites acting as the destination. If it was a file by file translation your argument would have been valid.
Git is part of the LLM's training set though, so simply asking it to recreate git in another language is pretty equivalent. Like, you can almost certainly get these LLMs to output gits full source code with some prompting, so there's not that much difference (as much as we like to pretend that AI generated code has no copyright implications)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Git is part of the LLM's training set though, so simply asking it to recreate git in another language is pretty equivalent. Like, you can almost certainly get these LLMs to output gits full source code with some prompting, so there's not that much difference (as much as we like to pretend that AI generated code has no copyright implications)
That's something I have been wondering. If I as a human want to make a clean room reimplementation of some API or application, I must not have read the source code of the original implementation. I don't see why this shouldn't apply to LLMs as well. If an LLM might have been trained on the original source code, it should be considered "tainted".
I have absolutely no idea how LLMs got through anyone's legal departments, I guess the hope is that if everyone breaks the law enough, it'll just be fine