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

I quit. The clankers won

dbushell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 515 posts

Re: I quit. The clankers won

#441

Post by joquarky »

martin-t wrote: post #429
coldpie wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I get a feeling from overall anti-AI sentiment online that a lot of people feel they're entitled to 100% of value created by anything even tangentially related to their person Rather, I don't like that the terms I released my work under aren't being respected. I believe LLMs are derivative works of the pieces they are trained on. I spent more than ten years working on open source code, and now the models that were…

I am in exactly the same boat, down to the ~10 years. Only difference is I ended up picking AGPL for my later works. Like it made a difference... The whole situation disgusts me. - They expect me to pay for access to my own stolen code. - Arguing stealing should be legal because China does it and if US companies don't, they'll be left behind. - People like the poster you're replying to who argue you're not entitled t…

How did they steal your code? Don't you have backups?

Re: I quit. The clankers won

#442

Post by joquarky »

probably_wrong wrote: post #238
kstenerud wrote: post #65

> The giant plagiarism machines have already stolen everything. Copyright is dead. Licenses are washed away in clean rooms. Isn't this what the free software movement wanted? Code available to all? Yes, code is cheap now. That's the new reality. Your value lies elsewhere. You can lament the loss of your usefulness as a horse buggy mechanic, or you can adapt your knowledge and experience and use it towards those newfa…

> Isn't this what the free software movement wanted? Code available to all? But this is not that. The current situations is closer to "what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine". I have been releasing my writings under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license which requires attribution and that anything built upon the material to be distributed "under the same license as the original". And yet I have no a…

What should be the maximum allowable cyclomatic complexity of license conditions?

Re: I quit. The clankers won

#443

Post by TeMPOraL »

martin-t wrote: post #426
TeMPOraL wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dog in the Manger. I get a feeling from overall anti-AI sentiment online that a lot of people feel they're entitled to 100% of value created by anything even tangentially related to their person, whether that's some intentional contribution or a random brain fart that happened in the vicinity of someone else doing something useful - and then become resentful they're not "getting their share". There's hardly any other…

So who should the value go to?

Whoever can materialize it. That's how societies grow and thrive, how a civilization is built - people building things, and instead of capturing 100% of the value, creating a surplus for others to build on top.

It's not like any of us ever did anything completely new, isolated and unaffected by influences and contributions of those around us, and those who came before us. Trying to capture 100% of the value and getting up in arms about "freeloaders" is a deeply antisocial form of greed, and usually the thing people accuse companies of doing, claiming it's a hallmark of "late stage capitalism".

Re: I quit. The clankers won

#444

Post by joquarky »

Arkhaine_kupo wrote: post #98
kstenerud wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI makes the entirety of the software engineering profession available to you. All you have to do is ask the right way, and you can build in days what once took months or years. Decompiling and re-engineering proprietary code has never been easier. You almost don't even need the source code anymore. The object code can be examined by your LLM, and binary patches applied. Closed source is no longer the moat it was, an…

> Decompiling and re-engineering proprietary code has never been easier. You almost don't even need the source code anymore. The object code can be examined by your LLM, and binary patches applied. Jesus christ. "The people who wanted everyone to have a home should be happy with the invention of the lockpick. You can just find a nice house and open the lock and move in. Ignore the lockpick company charging essentiall…

If you're worried about theft, then make backups.

Code isn't like a house, you can just copy it and put the copy somewhere safe.

Re: I quit. The clankers won

#445

Post by fragmede »

ryandrake wrote: post #435
moron4hire wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a lot more "yngmi" and "have fun being poor"-style attitude around here regarding LLM boosterism.

The thing I can't stand is the absolute certainty of the boosters. It's almost religious. AI is the future . AI will do this . AI will cause that . It is inevitable. Everything is obviously changing. They leave no room left for debate. No openness to pushback. And no evidence or proof. It just is because it is, and if you don't believe it, you're simply wrong. We saw the same sort of attitudes with blockchain and NFT…

What would you take as evidence?

Re: I quit. The clankers won

#446

Post by [deleted] »

xnorswap wrote: post #31
farfatched wrote: post #18

> The AI industry is 99% hype; a billion dollar industrial complex to put a price tag on creation. At this point if you believe AI is ‘just a tool’ you’re wilfully ignoring the harm. > (Regardless, why do I keep being told it’s an ‘extreme’ stance if I decide not to buy something?) > The 1% utility AI has is overshadowed by the overwhelming mediocracy it regurgitates. This sort of reasoning is why you might have been…

Yes, declaring AI to be 99% hype just turns away people like me from what the author has to say. I was an AI sceptic for a long time until toward the end of last year when I seriously evaluated them, and came to realise it could add tremendous value. When someone comes along and declares that it's all hype, it goes against my experience that it's getting things done. I can also see the harm it does, and I hope the to…

[deleted]

Re: I quit. The clankers won

#447

Post by joquarky »

toofy wrote: post #299
kstenerud wrote: post #65

> The giant plagiarism machines have already stolen everything. Copyright is dead. Licenses are washed away in clean rooms. Isn't this what the free software movement wanted? Code available to all? Yes, code is cheap now. That's the new reality. Your value lies elsewhere. You can lament the loss of your usefulness as a horse buggy mechanic, or you can adapt your knowledge and experience and use it towards those newfa…

i can say with a pretty high confidence level that few people in the free software movement want the closed off black boxes these companies are locking away. they’re not free in any sense of the word. from price to openness of the models. would openai cry if every bit of their models were wide open for us to use however we see fit? if so, then it’s not free, again, in any definition of the word.

Every time Walmart does something evil, I cry myself to sleep when I realize I can never go to Walmart again.

Local models are a thing.

Re: I quit. The clankers won

#448

Post by CamperBob2 »

nunez wrote: post #330
pfisherman wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is going to catch some heat, but what if the most important professional “developer skill” to learn or improve is how to effectively use coding agents? I saw something similar in ML when neural nets came around. The whole “stack moar layerz” thing is a meme, but it was a real sentiment about newer entrants into the field not learning anything about ML theory or best practices. As it turns out, neural nets “won”…

> This is going to catch some heat, but what if the most important professional “developer skill” to learn or improve is how to effectively use coding agents? Doing so will effectively force a (potentially unwanted) career change for many people and will lead to the end of software engineering (and software as a career), assuming AI continues to improve. "Effectively" using agents means that you're writing specs and…

Doing so will effectively force a (potentially unwanted) career change for many people and will lead to the end of software engineering (and software as a career), assuming AI continues to improve.

If you expected things to stay the same forever, maybe software engineering wasn't the right career move for you. Even though it looked safe enough, given that we've spent 50 years writing the same old code the same old way, that was never guaranteed.

I for one am glad to see something genuinely new come along. The last dozen or so "paradigm shifts" turned out to be disappointing variations on the same old paradigm. Not this one, though.

Re: I quit. The clankers won

#449

Post by eudamoniac »

fragmede wrote: post #445
ryandrake wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing I can't stand is the absolute certainty of the boosters. It's almost religious. AI is the future . AI will do this . AI will cause that . It is inevitable. Everything is obviously changing. They leave no room left for debate. No openness to pushback. And no evidence or proof. It just is because it is, and if you don't believe it, you're simply wrong. We saw the same sort of attitudes with blockchain and NFT…

What would you take as evidence?

Any quality, useful (commercial) piece of software made with only AI code would suffice. Any successful AI-written indie game. Any successful AI-written library.

Re: I quit. The clankers won

#450

Post by robocat »

coldpie wrote: post #346
TeMPOraL wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dog in the Manger. I get a feeling from overall anti-AI sentiment online that a lot of people feel they're entitled to 100% of value created by anything even tangentially related to their person, whether that's some intentional contribution or a random brain fart that happened in the vicinity of someone else doing something useful - and then become resentful they're not "getting their share". There's hardly any other…

> I get a feeling from overall anti-AI sentiment online that a lot of people feel they're entitled to 100% of value created by anything even tangentially related to their person Rather, I don't like that the terms I released my work under aren't being respected. I believe LLMs are derivative works of the pieces they are trained on. I spent more than ten years working on open source code, and now the models that were…

You desire a sharing community, but the takers/defectors are destroying that community.

Copyleft attempts to create a pool of code that forces sharing. But it broadly fails because you simply can't force antisocial people to be good sharers (plus source code usually isn't as valuable as we hope).

With any gifting/sharing, you have to accept that some of it will be abused. It is hard to filter for only community minded people who don't greedily abuse, and ideally who give freely.

I don't believe my circle of friends are becoming more selfish. I'm unsure what I would say about the rest of the world.

Post reply on HN