441–450 of 636 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I cannot bring myself to care about distillation, when these companies have built their empires on top of everyone else's stolen data, while at the same time telling the world they're out to replace us all.
Sure, AI progress comes to a halt then as everyone switches to the copycats that can't innovate, and the frontier companies are bled dry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I cannot bring myself to care about distillation, when these companies have built their empires on top of everyone else's stolen data, while at the same time telling the world they're out to replace us all.
Amazing that people on HN can't distinguish between training a model on open source data vs distilling a model's outputs.
how sure are we this entire “accident” is not an aprils fools joke?? Genius level AI marketing
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I cringe every time I see Claude trying to co-author a commit. The git history is expected to track accountability and ownership, not your Bill of Tools. Should I also co-author my PRs with my linter, intellisense and IDE?
If those tools are writing the code then in general I do expect that to be included in the PR! Through my whole career I've seen PRs where people noted that code that was generated (people have been generating code since long before LLMs). It's useful context unless you've gone over the generated code and understand it and it is the same quality as if you wrote it yourself (which in my experience is the case where it…
How? LSTM?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, AI progress comes to a halt then as everyone switches to the copycats that can't innovate, and the frontier companies are bled dry.
"frontier" as in the frontier of using everybody else's code, books, art of everyone else for a specific purpose that was never intended to, as in, not even open source projects ever imagined LLMs becoming a thing and their licenses reflected as much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, AI progress comes to a halt then as everyone switches to the copycats that can't innovate, and the frontier companies are bled dry.
Poor babies. Again, I don’t care about them.
every delay to AGI results in deaths that AGI could have prevented. we are talking millions of deaths for, say, just a year's delay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's typical of this site. I hand you a huge volume of evidence explaining why AI generated work cannot be copyrighted. You search for one scrap of text that seems to support your position even when it does not. You have no idea how bad this leak is for Anthropic because with the copyright office, you have a DUTY TO DISCLOSE any AI generated work, and it is fully RETROACTIVE. And what is part of this leak? undercov…
> because with the copyright office, you have a DUTY TO DISCLOSE any AI generated work, I was not aware of that. WHo has that duty and when do they have it?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47594044
That comment is spot on. Claude adding a co-author to a commit is documentation to put a clear line between code you wrote and code claude generated which does not qualify for copyright protection.
The damning thing about this leak is the inclusion of undercover.ts. That means Anthropic has now been caught red handed distributing a tool designed to circumvent copyright law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meanwhile, some colleagues: "Code should have as little comments as possible, the code should explain itself." (conceptually not wholly wrong, but it can only explain HOW not WHY and even then often insufficiently) all while having barebones/empty README.md files more often than not. Fun times.
Actually good naming does plenty to explain the why. And because it’s part of the code it might actually be updated when it stops being true.
Or how would you name methods and variables to explain why some payment reconciliation process skips matching for transactions under 0.50 EUR and just auto-approves them, because the external payment processor rounds differently than the internal ledger at sub-euro amounts, creating mismatches that were flooding the finance team's exception queue in 2013, explained more under Jira issue ZXSV-12456 and more details are known by j.doe@myorg.com. The threshold was chosen after analyzing six months of false positives, when it's any higher someone being undercharged doesn't get caught. I don't think autoApproveThreshold = 0.50 or anything like that would get the full context across, even if the rules themselves are all code.
I think surely you can have both! Code should explain itself as often as possible, but when you hit a wall due to some counter-intuitive workarounds being needed, or some business rules or external considerations that you need to keep track of, then comments also make sense. Better than just putting everything in a Jira issue somewhere, given that it often won't be read by you or others and almost certainly will not be read by any AI agents (unless you have an MCP or something, but probably uncommon), or spending hours trying to get the code to explain something it will never explain well. I've had people ask me about things that are covered in the README.md instead of reading it.