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

I gave the AI arms and legs then it rejected me

grell.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 419 posts

Re: I gave the AI arms and legs then it rejected me

#361

Post by rcxdude »

stopthe wrote: post #148

Unfortunately, the choice of license likely won't matter in the nearest future (if not already so). If a tech giant wants you open-source library, they will just point their agent to it and ask "to rewrite in the style of War and Peace". And more unscrupulous players won't even bother with a rewrite, as we've seen recently in the case of Cheatingdaddy/Pickle.

>If a tech giant wants you open-source library, they will just point their agent to it and ask "to rewrite in the style of War and Peace"

Is there any evidence of this happening? And any legal theory behind how it might have the intended effect? Training being fair use does not make AI a magical copyright-removal box.

Re: I gave the AI arms and legs then it rejected me

#362

Post by krapp »

rcxdude wrote: post #361
stopthe wrote: post #148

Unfortunately, the choice of license likely won't matter in the nearest future (if not already so). If a tech giant wants you open-source library, they will just point their agent to it and ask "to rewrite in the style of War and Peace". And more unscrupulous players won't even bother with a rewrite, as we've seen recently in the case of Cheatingdaddy/Pickle.

>If a tech giant wants you open-source library, they will just point their agent to it and ask "to rewrite in the style of War and Peace" Is there any evidence of this happening? And any legal theory behind how it might have the intended effect? Training being fair use does not make AI a magical copyright-removal box.

AI is already "too big to fail" in every conceivable way. If there is a conflict between AI and the law, then the law will inevitably be rewritten, reinterpreted or repealed in the way most beneficial to the service of AI.

Re: I gave the AI arms and legs then it rejected me

#363

Post by flaburgan »

Jensson wrote: post #334
mystraline wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, what is your net-worth, in that you fight for freebies to corporations? What net worth should I strive towards so I can be nonchalant and passe about money? I'm certainly not there. Also more curious, is the AGPL doesn't affect humans doing stuff. It affects companies when they grab, modify, and host and not share contributions. Read about anti-TIVOization. That's why the AGPL. I'm guessing you know this, and why…

> Also more curious, is the AGPL doesn't affect humans doing stuff. It does affect humans doing stuff that isn't malicious, like if you need to solve a problem by modifying the code then now you also have to make that change public which is a hassle, I'd rather not have to track or maintain such things. I'd rather not have to think about that, and I care more about such nuisances than I care about the possibility of…

The scenario you are describing (discovering a problem to fix, being able to fix it, but then not sharing the fix with other people) is the exact reason why GPL has been invented: to force people to share their work, so that we can all have better software, together. Maybe the software you are using wouldn't have been that good if other people weren't forced to share their improvements. Your small effort is going to help others, and their small efforts are going to help you even more. This mindset of sharing should be natural but, as you just proved, people are lazy and so the license has to force them.

Re: I gave the AI arms and legs then it rejected me

#364

Post by iqml2568 »

mystraline wrote: post #311
aidenn0 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And until I'm independently wealthy, I too will license AGPL. If you're making money on my stuff, I want a cut. Simple as that. A. So much for "Not everybody has to be chasing money..." as missing the point B. What hubris to claim that just because you wrote something it is now "yours" in any meaningful way. The copyright lobby has infected everywhere.

So, what is your net-worth, in that you fight for freebies to corporations? What net worth should I strive towards so I can be nonchalant and passe about money? I'm certainly not there. Also more curious, is the AGPL doesn't affect humans doing stuff. It affects companies when they grab, modify, and host and not share contributions. Read about anti-TIVOization. That's why the AGPL. I'm guessing you know this, and why…

You're mixing events. Tivoization resulted in GPLv3, while AGPL emerged as a response to SaaS.

Re: I gave the AI arms and legs then it rejected me

#365

Post by johnnyanmac »

mystraline wrote: post #299
foxglacier wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people want others to freely use their software and choose MIT precisely because it's more free than GPL. There's nothing wrong with just making something for free and giving it away if that's what you want. Not everybody has to be chasing money in all their activities. The author said he was proud of this outcome and nervous at how widely his hobby project will be deployed. That sounds like the ambition of many…

> Some people want others to freely use their software and choose MIT precisely because it's more free than GPL. MIT license is absolutely not 'more free' than the GPL. In fact, MIT means you give up effective ownership and control. You lose control and contributions. And what do you get for that loss of control? Exposure. Or, in this and many other cases similar, you get diddly shit. Some company paracitizes your co…

>MIT means you give up effective ownership and control. You lose control and contributions. And what do you get for that loss of control? Exposure. Or, in this and many other cases similar, you get diddly shit.

Isn't that what true freedom is?

You can argue that more freedom is a net burden for both the individual and society (tragedy of the commons), but that doesn't negate the aspect of it being more free to begin with.

>And not many of us are independently wealthy, and can do things that we want with no monetary care.

Indeed. But not many people contribute to any kind of OS community to begin with (regardless of the license). I would like to one day, but then the industry laid me and hundreds of thousands off in the last few years and those plans were delayed.

There definitely is a certain level of privilege in being able to provide knowledge to others on the side. Even morose if you're part of an organization that pays you to do so.

Re: I gave the AI arms and legs then it rejected me

#366

Post by ahartmetz »

fsflover wrote: post #181
ahartmetz wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you link against GPL code, your code needs to be GPL compatible. There are some IPC based workarounds, but they are too annoying and slow in most cases.

LGPL exists too.

Sure, but the thread was initially about GPL.

Re: I gave the AI arms and legs then it rejected me

#367

Post by brudgers »

chatmasta wrote: post #331
brudgers wrote: post #238

Through a friend of a friend, I found out that Anthropic had an open position "Coffee" with the friend of a friend would he better strategy than a cover letter in that case...more work, but better strategy. Because logically, getting hired requires demonstrating you are "the kind of person we want to work with." Being qualified on paper is not necessarily required.

You basically need to avoid putting your name into the main queue as long as possible. Make them do it manually on their side and keep track of it. If they want you, then you’ll bypass all the crap this way.

More fundamentally, companies only hire people they know.

“Coffee” is a way to meet “a company.”

A letter is not.

Even a letter of introduction.

Re: I gave the AI arms and legs then it rejected me

#368

Post by gtirloni »

stopthe wrote: post #148

Unfortunately, the choice of license likely won't matter in the nearest future (if not already so). If a tech giant wants you open-source library, they will just point their agent to it and ask "to rewrite in the style of War and Peace". And more unscrupulous players won't even bother with a rewrite, as we've seen recently in the case of Cheatingdaddy/Pickle.

what has been your experience with asking AI to create a complex project from beginning to end?

Re: I gave the AI arms and legs then it rejected me

#369

Post by zdragnar »

ako wrote: post #342
zdragnar wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first company I worked for (a smallish business) interviewed a guy who seemed normal and knowledgeable enough in the screener call. At the time, they just asked that people being in code samples to discuss in the second interview (this predated GitHub) and he brought in some obviously copy-pasted code that didn't fit together. He then, without prompt, in the middle of a conversation mentioned that he was the seco…

Of course you're right, there will always be people that try to abuse the system. But the bigger picture here is that more people are truly being discriminated for their color, religion, sex, etc, than there are people abusing the system. A system that improves live for many should not be removed because some people try to abuse it.

We are discussing whether or not it is safe for a company to reply to an applicant with "we didn't review your CV".

The crux of my point is that the potential for a perceived grievance is sufficient to trigger legal action. Whether bigotry was involved or not is entirely beside the point, because even if the company absolutely was 100% not discriminating, they are still vulnerable for creating a situation where they could be perceived as having done so.

In no way am I advocating for removing protections for disadvantaged groups. I'm not arguing that bigotry doesn't exist. There's no point in bringing up the fact that it does.

You know what's cheaper than getting hundreds of baseless court cases dismissed? Not replying to someone with "we ignored your application".

Re: I gave the AI arms and legs then it rejected me

#370

Post by chatmasta »

brudgers wrote: post #367
chatmasta wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You basically need to avoid putting your name into the main queue as long as possible. Make them do it manually on their side and keep track of it. If they want you, then you’ll bypass all the crap this way.

More fundamentally, companies only hire people they know. “Coffee” is a way to meet “a company.” A letter is not. Even a letter of introduction.

Companies don't hire people. People hire people.
Post reply on HN