Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI and the Ship of Theseus

lucumr.pocoo.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 203 posts

Re: AI and the Ship of Theseus

#31

Post by jmalicki »

Hamuko wrote: post #29
vintagedave wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or GPL. Which I’m increasingly thinking is the only license. It requires sharing. And if anything can be reimplemented and there’s no value in the source any more, just the spec or tests, there’s no public-interest reason for any restriction other than completely free, in the GPL sense.

> Or GPL. Which I’m increasingly thinking is the only license. It requires sharing. It doesn't if Dan Blanchard spends some tokens on it and then licenses the output as MIT.

Who are you talking about? I can't find reference to this person.

Re: AI and the Ship of Theseus

#32

Post by GaggiX »

measurablefunc wrote: post #28
GaggiX wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Real AI is more brilliant than whatever algorithm you could ever think of So with "Real AI" you actually mean artificial superintelligence.

I wrote what I meant & meant what I wrote. You can take up your argument w/ the people who think they're working on AI by adding more data centers & more matrix multiplications to function graphs if you want to argue about marketing terms.

I was just thinking that calling artificial superintelligence "Real AI" was funny.

Re: AI and the Ship of Theseus

#33

Post by pixl97 »

measurablefunc wrote: post #15
nomdep wrote: post #7

In this emerging reality, the whole spectrum of open-source licenses effectively collapses toward just two practical choices: release under something permissive like MIT (no real restrictions), or keep your software fully proprietary and closed. These are fascinating, if somewhat scary, times.

If you listen to the people who believe real AI is right around the corner then any software can be recreated from a detailed enough specification b/c whatever special sauce is hidden in the black box can be inferred from its outward behavior. Real AI is more brilliant than whatever algorithm you could ever think of so if the real AI can interact w/ your software then it can recreate a much better version of it w/o l…

Real AI will never be invented, because as AI systems become more capable we'll figure out humans weren't intelligent in the first place, therefore intelligence never existed.

Re: AI and the Ship of Theseus

#34

Post by irishcoffee »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #18
coldtea wrote: post #13

[flagged]

Maybe, but the LLM did not recite the chardet source code so that argument does not appear to apply here.

This whole "today" fascination with chardet is a classic example of manipulation. I suggest you disregard this term instead of defending it.

Re: AI and the Ship of Theseus

#35

Post by kccqzy »

jmalicki wrote: post #31
Hamuko wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or GPL. Which I’m increasingly thinking is the only license. It requires sharing. It doesn't if Dan Blanchard spends some tokens on it and then licenses the output as MIT.

Who are you talking about? I can't find reference to this person.

He is the maintainer of chardet. The main topic of the article is the whole LGPL to MIT rewrite and relicense done by this person.

https://github.com/chardet/chardet/releases/tag/7.0.0

Re: AI and the Ship of Theseus

#36

Post by measurablefunc »

GaggiX wrote: post #32
measurablefunc wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote what I meant & meant what I wrote. You can take up your argument w/ the people who think they're working on AI by adding more data centers & more matrix multiplications to function graphs if you want to argue about marketing terms.

I was just thinking that calling artificial superintelligence "Real AI" was funny.

Corporate marketing is very effective. I don't have as many dollars to spend on convincing people that AI is when they give me as much data as possible & the more data they give me the more "super" it gets.

Re: AI and the Ship of Theseus

#37

Post by measurablefunc »

pixl97 wrote: post #33
measurablefunc wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you listen to the people who believe real AI is right around the corner then any software can be recreated from a detailed enough specification b/c whatever special sauce is hidden in the black box can be inferred from its outward behavior. Real AI is more brilliant than whatever algorithm you could ever think of so if the real AI can interact w/ your software then it can recreate a much better version of it w/o l…

Real AI will never be invented, because as AI systems become more capable we'll figure out humans weren't intelligent in the first place, therefore intelligence never existed.

Don't worry, just 10 more data centers & a few more gigawatts will get you there even if the people building the data centers & powerplants are unintelligent & mindless drones. But in any event, I have no interest in religious arguments & beliefs so your time will be better spent convincing people who are looking for another religion to fill whatever void was left by secular education since such people are much more amenable to religious indoctrination & will very likely find many of your arguments much more persuasive & convincing.

Re: AI and the Ship of Theseus

#38

Post by 7777777phil »

The legal question is a distraction. GPL was always enforced by economics: reimplementation had to cost more than compliance. At $1,100 for 94% API coverage, it doesn't. Copyleft was built for a world where clean-room rewrites were painful but they aren't anymore.

Re: AI and the Ship of Theseus

#39

Post by embedding-shape »

nomdep wrote: post #7

In this emerging reality, the whole spectrum of open-source licenses effectively collapses toward just two practical choices: release under something permissive like MIT (no real restrictions), or keep your software fully proprietary and closed. These are fascinating, if somewhat scary, times.

> or keep your software fully proprietary and closed.

I guess it depends on your intention, but eventually I'm not sure it'll even be possible to keep it "fully proprietary and closed" in the hopes of no one being able to replicate it, which seems to be the main motivation for many to go that road.

If you're shipping something, making something available, others will be able to use it (duh) and therefore replicate it. The barrier for being able to replicate things like this either together with LLMs or letting the LLM straight it up do it themselves with the right harness, seems to get lowered real quick, massive difference in just a few years already.

Re: AI and the Ship of Theseus

#40

Post by moralestapia »

coldtea wrote: post #14
moralestapia wrote: post #2

[flagged]

> Licenses exists for a reason Yes, and the choice of license for a project is made for a reason that not necessarily everybody agree with. And the people who don't agree, have every right to implement a similar, even file-format or API compatible, project and give it another license. Gnumeric vs Excel, for example, or forks like MariaDB and Valkey. But whether they do that alternative licensed project or not, it's p…

Hmm ... you don't have to ask for consent. You just slap the license you want to your code and that's it.

It's not some sort of democracy, lol, it's a set of exclusive rights that are created the moment the work being copyrighted is produced.

(For a quick intro I recommend: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxVs7FCgOig)

In the case of the license in question (L/GPL), it's one of the most strict ones out there, it explicitly forbids relicensing code under a different non-compatible license, like MIT; let me says that again, L/GPL EXPLICITLY FORBIDS the thing that happened here from happening.

I sympathize with the guy that spent 12 years of his life maintaining the code, thank you for your service or something, but that does not make a difference. The wording of the (L/GPL) license is clear and the original author and most of the other 50 or so contributors did not approve of this.

Post reply on HN