6 ms·
Yeah you're right, it IS entirely fair to suddenly and quickly push the group that built your industry out of the industry. They should all just find new jobs,
by _luci_ 1mo ago
Yeah you're right, it IS entirely fair to suddenly and quickly push the group that built your industry out of the industry. They should all just find new jobs, because that's very easy and simple. Thankfully we have bright minds like you to replace the talent lost, because with AI you can truly do anything your heart desires!
Obvious sarcasm aside, these LLMs have been trained (without consent!) on our hard work, on our passion. People have been writing code for years, and many have open-sourced their projects to share their knowledge, to better the world, to provide free solutions to problems. All that hard work, all that effort, has been stolen and used to create a machine that replaces us. And when we complain that quality goes down, that work is no longer enjoyable, that we don't actually see huge noticable productivity improvements across the board, bright minds like you tell us "lol just quit man fuck you". Do you not feel bad that you are actively destroying the livelihood of the very people that made your slop machine viable to build?
- frozenseven 1mo ago[flagged]
- jujube3 1mo agoMaking your code open source was consenting to have people (and AIs) read it and learn from it. As an open source developer myself, I always understood that.
- _luci_ 1mo agoI consented to PEOPLE reading it. How could I have predicted that AI would take off so rapidly and get trained on my repos? How could I have predicted that AI would be trained on code without a license attached, or on code with strict licenses attached that do not allow for such use? A silly response if you ask me
- frozenseven 1mo agoThe field of ML is probably older than your parents and IP law doesn't grant people immunity from it (or any other form of data analysis for that matter). If a person can read it, so can AI.
- jujube3 1mo agoSaying that you can't copy something is different from saying that it is illegal to read it. For example, it is legal for me to read Ray Bradbury's book, "Fahrenheit 451" when I check it out from the library. It is not legal for me to copy the book. This is why it's called "copyright" and not "readright". So then the question becomes what "copying" means. There is an extensive body of legal precedent on this matter, and it mostly all points to "transformative uses" being exempt from copyright. For example, if I count the number of words in Fahrenheit 451, that number is not copyrighted. If I reproduce just a sentence, or maybe even a paragraph, that also doesn't count. But at a certain threshold, once I've reproduced enough of the book verbatim, I have violated copyright. Training an LLM is also a transformative use which means that it is simply not covered by copyright.