unknownfuture

7 ms·

31.
by unknownfuture 27d ago
> It's usually easier than that, as one by default hold the copyright of their works. That's not what we're talking about. This is a question of copyright eligibility in the first place. An excellent recent(ish) example is
32.
by unknownfuture 27d ago
> It means as long as you can find a few employees who testify that they made "creative input" during the process and nobody can disprove that, you're fine. Have you been involved in copyright or patent litigation? Because
33.
by unknownfuture 1mo ago
Oh Jesus this. I've tried to include rules that tell Claude to only include relevant, evergreen comments but it's to no avail. I also love how it'll build local plans with phases, tasks, or decisions, then reference those num
34.
by unknownfuture 1mo ago
It would be a mistake to judge AI based on the performance of one of its strongest pushers and promoters? Interesting take.
35.
by unknownfuture 1mo ago
Weird, I've been told you can just throw AI at all your logs and metrics and it can magically solve all the things...
36.
by unknownfuture 1mo ago
> Either Github's technical leadership/talent is completely out of their depth (seems unlikely), or they're not hiring enough engineers to work on these capacity issues. Regarding their leadership, I'd argue the latte
37.
by unknownfuture 1mo ago
Doubly so given this is hardly a surprise. We've been on this trajectory for at least a couple of years now. They don't get to shrug, point at 10x volume, and act like they've been blindsided.
38.
by unknownfuture 1mo ago
Because what you describe is a fantasy that will never materialize. We're headed for Elysium, not Star Trek.
39.
by unknownfuture 1mo ago
I really wish there was an HN guideline that banned AI generated content outright. Until then all we can do is flag slop.
40.
by unknownfuture 1mo ago
> Assuming of course everything else stays the same (quality, etc.) Kinda begging the question, aren't we here?
41.
by unknownfuture 1mo ago
Oh I'm aware. I'm not saying it makes any g-d sense. I'm just saying that's the corporate logic. So for those of us stuck in AI pilled orgs, the best bet is to play the game and keep your skills sharp on the side in case
42.
by unknownfuture 1mo ago
I'm amazed you think typical corporations care about staff learning and engagement in the first place. There's a reason they're trying to replace humans with AI: they just want outcomes. People learning and growing is only us
43.
by unknownfuture 1mo ago
Have you never heard the adage that regulations are written in blood? Plenty of regulations in many many fields are evidence based. Sure, many are not. But to make such a blanket statement is absurd.
44.
by unknownfuture 1mo ago
> policy was not dictated by legal by cocreated based on my input, Yes but ultimately legal isn't putting policy into practice, which is my point. > HR is a bit different and strange to bring up, especially considering I used ent
45.
by unknownfuture 1mo ago
> Haven't we seen from history that handing down policy from your ivory tower is a disservice to all involved? I take it you've never worked with an in-house legal counsel, accounting department, or good ol' fashioned HR?
46.
by unknownfuture 1mo ago
I agree. Specifically because in these companies they aren't optimizing for ethical behaviour . They're optimizing for profit. And those damn ethicists just get in the way. Funny thing: that doesn't typically happen to the i
47.
by unknownfuture 1mo ago
I'd argue folks in ethics roles shouldn't be responsible for actually creating the systems, processes, and practices required to put those concepts into practice. That's what engineering, product, and people leadership are
48.
by unknownfuture 1mo ago
> The people in AI ethics who spent years thinking their job was marketing or publishing thinkpiece papers may be having to adapt quickly or get out of the field. Your disdain is showing. That you jump immediately to criticizing AI ethic
49.
by unknownfuture 1mo ago
> Not because I'm worried it's about to do something harmful but because I want to stop it from wasting tokens doing something stupid like implementing a feature I never asked ask for ... plan mode?
50.
by unknownfuture 1mo ago
The article mentions that coding is only a fraction of dev time and thus accelerating that part of the job can only create incremental gains, and oh PS, lines of code and similar metrics are a bad way if measuring dev productivity, anyway,
51.
by unknownfuture 1mo ago
Self-reported or observational data capturing time spent for categories of task ala every other similar study in this space? This isn't exactly novel territory, here, Simon. Let's not pretend I'm asking for something strange,
52.
by unknownfuture 1mo ago
Okay. Show me the evidence that AI has an impact on productivity when doing design work. Or reducing meeting load. My own experience is that AI doesn't tighten the design cycle, and in fact might extend it by encouraging gold plating.
53.
by unknownfuture 1mo ago
Honestly I think the thing I love most about Pi is that I'm not dealing with a tool with a thousand undiscovered features. I either pick and install what I want from the package ecosystem or I bottle up my own workflows into extensions
54.
by unknownfuture 1mo ago
Eh, it's open source. If its closed, fork it, move on. It's entire raison d'etre is to have a very minimal core so it's nature is that the base product isn't actually where the magic exists, but in the extensibility
55.
by unknownfuture 1mo ago
The blogger owes you nothing.
56.
by unknownfuture 1mo ago
> Hence the advice to read the tests? Reading tests and actually catching issues requires a heck of a lot of effort. IME code reviews of tests are often more laborious than reviewing the code itself since so much if it is reasoning abo
57.
by unknownfuture 1mo ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49155075 "These models are probabilistic, you shouldn't blindly trust them in spaces where accuracy is really important" seems like pretty sound advice to me.
58.
by unknownfuture 1mo ago
> I just prefer HN comments to be better reflections of reality. You mean your particular version of it. It's interesting to see you consistently missing this point. You've decided LLMs are clearly more than just complex but mi
59.
by unknownfuture 1mo ago
Even now you're engaging in this discussion as though I'm trying to litigate your point and that somehow forcing me to concede is, what, winning? I don't know. I get the impression you want me to concede that the particular p
60.
by unknownfuture 1mo ago
Eh, I'm not going to litigate your claims. My point is it's silly to whine that HN is a place where multiple points of view on the topic are aired out and discussed. If you want a personal echo chamber where only your own beliefs

More ›