[flagged]
Rars: a Rust RAR implementation, mostly written by LLMs
31–40 of 92 posts
Re: Rars: a Rust RAR implementation, mostly written by LLMs
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
It works == it's correct?
This is Rust we're talking about. It doesn't even need to work; as long as it compiles, it's correct.
> This is Rust we're talking about. It doesn't even need to work; as long as it compiles, it's correct.
No, it doesn't even need to compile. The mere fact that it's in Rust means it's correct.
Re: Rars: a Rust RAR implementation, mostly written by LLMs
#33Rar means weird in Norwegian and adorable in Swedish. Just for an anecdote.
Those almost sound like antonyms which is ironic given how closely related the two languages are
Re: Rars: a Rust RAR implementation, mostly written by LLMs
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is Rust we're talking about. It doesn't even need to work; as long as it compiles, it's correct.
use std::fs::File; use std::io::prelude::*; fn main() -> std::io::Result { let mut file = File::create("content.txt")?; file.write_all(b"3!")?; Ok(()) }
; cat content.txt
3!;
Re: Rars: a Rust RAR implementation, mostly written by LLMs
#35[flagged]
For everyone out there whining about AI, there's one of you whining about being anti-AI.
Maybe just cut the unprompted whining?
Re: Rars: a Rust RAR implementation, mostly written by LLMs
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope the developers of, say, the brakes in my car don't interpret 'software correctness' the way you do. Added, later: hey you changed your comment, added a whole paragraph.
I hope the brakes in my car don't need developers
ABS doesn't just appear organically.
Re: Rars: a Rust RAR implementation, mostly written by LLMs
#37Re: Rars: a Rust RAR implementation, mostly written by LLMs
#38Rar means weird in Norwegian and adorable in Swedish. Just for an anecdote.
It means hello in dinosaur
Re: Rars: a Rust RAR implementation, mostly written by LLMs
#39[flagged]
For everyone out there whining about AI, there's one of you whining about being anti-AI. Maybe just cut the unprompted whining?
Would be great, but then it's a saturation game, and the other side doesn't have any compelling reason to hold back the same way. So it's contingent on how fair the platform is, and what nonverbal, out of band options remain.
HN is better than most in this regard thanks to community flagging, but even then there's a lot of it. Ultimately, it'd seem that the ratio you're describing skews a whole lot more towards the anti-ai sentiment side, than towards the anti-anti-ai one (or towards a stalemate). Or rather, that the latter sentiment is not common enough necessarily to thwart such comments. And so you see it reflected verbally instead.
Re: Rars: a Rust RAR implementation, mostly written by LLMs
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really unsure why this is getting downvoted, to my understanding this is a massive, unsettled concern. It wasn't even a disasm/pseudocode to formal spec flow, and then a separate human implementation. The same human has been in the loop throughout, and large parts of it were generated directly. It's basically guaranteed tainted. Edit: I should have skimmed a bit more patiently, there was in fact no "disasm/pseudocode…
I read the post you're replying to as saying "this is copyright-encumbered and nonfree because it's a derivative work of everything in Claude's and GPT-5.5's training corpus", which is an argument I find fairly tiresome. (Realistically, if courts actually rule that this is the case, this tiny little project will be the least of anyone's concerns.) "This is copyright-encumbered and nonfree because it's a derivative wo…
The point is, excepting current legal standards which are already very murky, how can _you_ claim copyright, if you don't _know_ it isn't encumbered?
You can get these LLMs to generate copyrighted outputs both intentionally and accidentally. This is a known fact; therefore, if you're not checking the output to see if this has occurred then you're potentially generating legal risks for yourself and anyone who uses your code.
To not only ignore this for your own use case but to then release the code under a proclaimed license seems legally problematic if not ethically concerning.
If you did get sued for infringement I can't imagine that your defense would be that you find the argument tiresome? Honestly, do you think this would never happen, or how would you go about defending your actions here?