GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic • Hacker News Board

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#691

Post by nsonha » Wed, Oct 30, 2024, 5:00 PM UTC

DeathArrow wrote: post #571

nsonha wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> cursor and its tab completion If this is how you use Cursor then you dont need Cursor. Autocomplete has existed even before AI, but Cursor's selling point is in multi-files editing and a sensible workflow that let users iterate through diffs in the UI. I have never used AI to generate code, only to edit. I can see it useful in both, and we should look at all usecases of AI instead of looking at it as glorified auto…

>If this is how you use Cursor then you dont need Cursor. I've tried Cursor yesterday only to realise it can't run and debug C# projects.

That's not a thing that AI can reliably do yet. If any code AI, including Cursor, can do that, it would be pretty ground breaking. There are some projects iterating on that front though. For example, one VSCode extension called Clide can use Anthropic Computer Use to control a headless browser and read console.log to debug in that limited way.

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#692

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Oct 30, 2024, 5:00 PM UTC

AIorNot wrote: post #427

Reviewing these conversations is like listening to horse and buggy manufacturers pooh-poohing automobiles: 1. they will scare the horses. a good team of horses is no match for funky 'automobile' 2. how will they be able to deal with our muddy, messy roads 3. their engines are unreliable and prone to breaking down stranding you in the middle and having to do it yourself.. 4. their drivers cant handle the speed, too ma…

[deleted]

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#693

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Oct 30, 2024, 5:00 PM UTC

hi_hi wrote: post #496

Every single one of these discussion, at some point, devolves to some version of - is by far the best. In my extensive usage it is consistently outperforms by at least 2x. The difference is night and day. Then the immediate child reply: - What!? You must be holding it wrong. The complete inverse is true for me. I don't know what to make of this contradiction. We're all using the same 2 things right? How can opinions…

[deleted]

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#694

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Oct 30, 2024, 5:02 PM UTC

sotix wrote: post #633

This sort of makes me sick as a software engineer with licensed code on GitHub. Am I understanding correctly that they have trained data on my code despite my license? Do I receive monetary payment from the deal? Or have I misunderstood this?

[deleted]

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#695

Post by nonethewiser » Wed, Oct 30, 2024, 5:03 PM UTC

0xFACEFEED wrote: post #329

ianbutler wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm actually very curious why AI use is such a bi-modal experience. I've used AI to move multi thousand line codebases between languages. I've created new apps from scratch with it. My theory is the willingness to baby sit and the modality. I'm perfectly fine telling the tool I use its errors and working side by side with it like it was another person. At the end of the day it can belt out lines of code faster than I…

As a programmer of over 20 years - this is terrifying. I'm willing to accept that I just have "get off my lawn" syndrome or something. But the idea of letting an LLM write/move large swaths of code seems so incredibly irresponsible. Whenever I sit down to write some code, be it a large implementation or a small function, I think about what other people (or future versions of myself) will struggle with when interactin…

> But the idea of letting an LLM write/move large swaths of code seems so incredibly irresponsible. Whenever I sit down to write some code, be it a large implementation or a small function, I think about what other people (or future versions of myself) will struggle with when interacting with the code. Is it clear and concise? Is it too clever?

I agree with our conclusion but not your supporting evidence. Not only can you read it to answer all these questions, but you can BETTER answer these questions from reading it. Because you are already looking at it from the perspective you are trying optimize for (future reader).

What is less clear is if it handles all the edge cases correctly. In theory these should all be tested, but many of them cannot even be identified without thinking through the idiosyncrasies of the code which is a natural byproduct of writing code.

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#696

Post by losvedir » Wed, Oct 30, 2024, 5:14 PM UTC

beeboobaa3 wrote: post #657

losvedir wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla gave out free trials of their self driving upgrade this month. I didn't buy it initially because of the grandiose claims that never seemed to materialize, but I've actually been pretty impressed with the trial. I still don't think it's worth it, but my Model Y has driven itself (with my close supervision of course) to a number of destinations I've keyed into the navigation, without me having to intervene. There…

Let me guess, you're in the US along one of the hardcoded routes?

I'm in the US, yes. But I feel like my small Indiana town is always behind the times, so I'd be surprised if anything about it was hardcoded for me.

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#697

Post by raffraffraff » Wed, Oct 30, 2024, 5:16 PM UTC

Wait, they weren't already using OpenAI? That explains how awful it was. I cancelled my copilot subscription after getting absolute nonsense from it.

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#698

Post by DirkH » Wed, Oct 30, 2024, 6:10 PM UTC

thagb wrote: post #619

AIorNot wrote: post #427

Reviewing these conversations is like listening to horse and buggy manufacturers pooh-poohing automobiles: 1. they will scare the horses. a good team of horses is no match for funky 'automobile' 2. how will they be able to deal with our muddy, messy roads 3. their engines are unreliable and prone to breaking down stranding you in the middle and having to do it yourself.. 4. their drivers cant handle the speed, too ma…

This is completely different: With an automobile (back then) you still needed ad driver. This replaces the most human occupation of all: thinking. So young people go ahead and steal the whole open source corpus that they did not write. And are smug about it. If your projections of progress are true, at least 90% of the people here who praise the code laundering machines will be made redundant.

No, it is similar. I think the analogy is that you being the horse and AI being cars. You are to upcoming AI what a horse was to cars.

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#699

Post by _heimdall » Wed, Oct 30, 2024, 8:37 PM UTC

CoastalCoder wrote: post #678

_heimdall wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a lawyer, but I would expect you to be the one on the hook there as you shared code without permission and likely lied when agreeing to GitHub's T&Cs. Microsoft wouldn't be able to pull that code out of already trained and, given that MS didn't do anything illegal when they used code that you said was yours to share, I wouldn't expect them to liable at all. That means MS wouldn't likely be fined, nor would they h…

> Microsoft wouldn't be able to pull that code out of already trained I imagine they could, they just wouldn't want to. Because it might require retraining the model from scratch, or at least from some not-very-recent checkpoint.

Yeah that was actually what I was trying to get at. Microsoft would have to get rid of the model trained on protected content, remove that content from the training set, and start over training a new model.

Re: GitHub cuts AI deals with Google, Anthropic

#700

Post by _heimdall » Wed, Oct 30, 2024, 8:41 PM UTC

CaptainFever wrote: post #671

_heimdall wrote: post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see this being raised as an automation issue. The GP comment is concerned with their work, including licensed code, being used by Microsoft to train LLM models without any kind of agreement or even compensation. There isn't clear legal precedent yet whether training models is an acceptable use of licensed work, but it has nothing to do with automation.

If the legal precedence comes out as "yes, it is legal", as many countries have already done (e.g. Japan), would GP really change their mind and become okay with it? (Note: the Copilot lawsuit have also mostly been dismissed, so this is already close to reality.) I doubt it. I think the GP will still be concerned about it, and would petition to change the law. So it has nothing to do with the legal precedence either,…

Legal precedent doesn't generally cross national borders like that, unless you're talking specifically about international law and precedent set by bodies like the UN or ICC.

When it comes to petitioning to change the law, that's a step further than precedent. Precedent is really just legal cases that had to be hashed out because the laws either don't exist or aren't clear. A person would be well within their right to disagree with legal precedent and try to get lawmakers to clarify or create laws that overrule court decisions.

Automation is a reasonable guess on why some may be worried about LLMs and his they're trained, I just didn't see that in the GP comment. They commented specifically on concerns of their content being used to train models without any kind of agreement or financial incentive.