GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering?

Yeah, also in principle. But the cleanroom approach isn't technically required for humans either -- it became standard because the legal notion of a derived work is very fuzzy and gradually changing, and lawsuits are expensive and chancy, so you want a process that's provably not infringing. "Yeah I learned some general ideas from this code, but I didn't derive any of my code from theirs" seems to be a logical rats-nest. With the explainable-AI approach to this particular problem, the more intelligent the AI, the more this solution is like analyzing brain scans of your engineers. If your engineers could have produced "derived work" without literal copying, why can't the AI?

“””Computers can already author documents at near human quality. Research is continuing to increase the accuracy and volume of these models.

Language processing research will not only help doctors, but will allow machine-based language translation, and eventually automated chat bots that can converse in our languages.

The next steps in human-machine collaboration are to allow people and machines to co-create. A recent Chinese report suggests that 50% of scientific papers in this field will be written without human intervention by 2033, compared with only 11% today.

One of the biggest challenges of machine learning is giving the machine what it lacks. This usually means gaining enough training data to teach the algorithm how to make inferences from data points it has never encountered before.

Many of the large organisations involved in advancing AI's ability to develop documents can improve how the algorithms learn by building on the knowledge and experience of human workers.”””

The above text was automatically written by https://app.inferkit.com/demo . It uses a language model to predict the next word in a sequence. In other words, to use your example, it not only architects, but builds, the entire building simply by predicting where to put the next brick.

So to answer your question: Yes. That’s exactly how it’s done.

Revolutions aren't great, period. But they happen when the system can no longer function, unless somebody carefully guides a transition to another stable state.

That said, wrt "communist" revolutions specifically - they result in totalitarian dictatorships because the Bolshevik/Marxist-Leninist ideology underpinning them is highly conductive to that: concepts like dictatorship of the proletariat (esp. in Lenin's interpretation of it), vanguard party, and democratic centralism all combine to this inevitable end result.

But no other ideological strain of Marxism has ever carried out a successful revolution - perhaps because they simply weren't brutal enough. By means of example: Bolsheviks violently suppressed the Russian Constituent Assembly within one day of its opening, as soon as they realized that they don't have the majority there. In a similar way, despite all the talk of council democracy, they consistently suppressed councils controlled by their opposition (peasant ones were, typically).

Bolsheviks were the first ones who succeeded, and thereafter, their support was crucial to the success of other revolutions - but that support came with ideological strings attached. So China, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba etc all hail from the same authoritarian tradition. Furthermore, where opposition leftist factions vied for dominance against Soviet-backed ones, Soviets actively suppressed them - the campaign against "social fascism" in 1930s, for example, or persecution of anarchists in Republican Spain.

Anyway, we don't really know what a revolution that would stick to democratic governance would look like, long term. There were some figures and factions in the revolutionary Marxist communist movement that were much more serious about democracy than Bolsheviks - e.g. Rosa Luxemburg. They just didn't survive for long.

Neat tool, but needs context.

I'm getting a lot of suggestions that make no sense. What's worse, the suggest code has invalid types, and won't compile. I'm surprised they didn't prune the solution tree via compiler validation.

True, but I also think this is showing a lack of imagination about where things are going.

You're trying to say architecting is some big woo idea that's somehow different from writing code. Kind of, maybe. But I bet you could build a functional kernel with central design. Given that's how biological systems work, I'm sure it could be done. Then what say you?