Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many bureaucracies in history have behaved in deeply misanthropic ways, especially when led by misanthropic leaders? Don't underestimate the power of the desire to keep one's job to cause a large organization to behave towards its own self-perpetuation despite the moral lines that must be crossed by individuals to do so.
> How many bureaucracies in history have behaved in deeply misanthropic ways, especially when led by misanthropic leaders? Lots! > Don't underestimate the power of the desire to keep one's job to cause a large organization to behave towards its own self-perpetuation despite the moral lines that must be crossed by individuals to do so. I don't. I don't put anything past people.
Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK
211–220 of 397 posts
Re: Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
more and more it seems like he's referring to billionaires more or less.
That's because you've had years of consuming media that blames everything on billionaires.
Re: Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
> given past scars around Java and copyright How many of these were self-inflicted?
Does it matter?
Re: Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK
#214Re: Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, your claim is "LLM generated code is not copyrighted." His claim is "LLM generated code is eligible for copyright."
My understanding (belief) is that it's going to depend on how much human involvement is there. If you write a prompt and one-shot a problem and share the source code, that source code is probably not covered by copyright. If you substantially edit or modify the generated code you would own the copyright. It's like with a camera. If I set a camera and carefully aim it and somehow trigger the shutter then make adjustme…
I don't like this idea that llm code can't be owned by a human, copyrighted. It's just code.
I think your last example with flock camera is relevant here - I can take a picture of a public football as a reporter or something (or a fan I guess) and I can copyright and sell that picture. Newspapers do it every day.
So if I stand on a street corner and take a pic, it's copyrightable. If I take a pic using a flock camera it should also be copyrightable, just like if my nest camera at home takes a pic of something, I can use that.
I guess you are saying "someone else owns the flock camera" so you don't get to own pictures. What if I buy the flock-like camera and put it up, I should own that.
Re: Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why on earth would I ever want to use SQLite if I have access to a sufficiently advanced code generator which can generate me a similarly high quality database system Because SQLite has 10k requirements that wouldn't even cross your mind to write down, but 80% of which are useful to you.
The nice thing about natural language is that nesting semantic layers is free and arbitrary, and far more tractable than in a formal grammar. Every natural language is like coherentist ω-order logic. Effectively, I don't have to write the 10k requirements. I only need to provide a sufficient metatheory that can be extrapolatable to those 10k requirements, and that can include embedded theory I did not write myself bu…
Re: Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK
#217Re: Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's just pause for a second and steep in the irony of "we're all in on AI, except where there are visible consequences." The same problems that bedevil AI-written PRs here bedevil AI-written PRs at my place of work. I'm sure it'll get better eventually, maybe, but something something Pareto principle.
> The same problems that bedevil AI-written PRs here bedevil AI-written PRs at my place of work. >I'm sure it'll get better eventually, maybe Why would it get better?
Re: Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK
#219Earlier 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.
In other words, Larry Ellison is going to do what Larry is going to do, and there's no use wondering why.
Usually, that's to make money and sue people, at any expense. It's in his nature.