lelanthran

So much this!

Here's what I cannot understand - the spirit behind this update is clear: to carve out a space for human-written projects.

Now we have a bunch of people nit-picking what "human-written" means, with a bunch of snide "Hah! Gotcha!" thrown in for good measure...

"What about if it autocompletes - that's not written by a human!!! Lusers!!!"

"Hey, I used LLMs to rubberduck this; that's not fully written by a human even though I typed it!!!"

"Hey, I used a _KEYBOARD_ to type it in; that's the computer and keyboard firmware that /akshually/ wrote the code!!!"

Face it, if you need to know how close to the line you can go without going over it, then Codeberg is probably not for you anyway - there's no need to nitpick the wording.

If you, in your own words, "write your own code", you don't really care where the line is because you're so far from it anyway.

There is no scenario where you'd want to nitpick the wording...

I personally don't find this clear at all and see many unhappy discussions in the future for Codeberg.

You don't understand their goal in doing this?

Frequently (much more than we'd like to admit) actual contracts leave loopholes in, said loopholes which go against the spirit of the contract. It is not unusual to have a concrete contract that allows more (or less) than the spirit the contract was signed in.

Rather than nitpicking the contract (the TOU), why do you think they need this updated contract in the first place?

I already don’t trust myself to write code without it being reviewed by AI .

I agree, skills atrophy is a real thing!

(It's a joke, relax... :-))

I think at this point any attempt to prevent it will fail. AI code is almost everywhere, even in projects that were against it 6 months ago.

That makes the remaining human-only communities even more valuable.

If so, it seems kind of short sighted. Within a very short period of time all code will be AI code. What then?

Then you'll use one of the many, many providers who will host your code. Why is it so important to you that this specific provider has to host vibe-coded stuff when you can host it anywhere else? Is "rest of the world" not a big enough place for you?

Well, guess I will take my repositories elsewhere.

When someone tells you "We cannot afford to support you anymore", do you also reply "Well, I'll take this burden to someone else who will be grateful to eat some cost in supporting me"?

What browser are you on? Hardware acceleration? It shouldn't be very difficult to run, so I'm guessing some sort of a compatibility issue

Sorry, the linked page, not the actual app. It slows my PC to a crawl.

You might want to look into this page - it slows my PC to a crawl :-(

I've yet to debug a big where the manifestation happens prior to the cause... Sounds even harder. :p

UB in C++ can have the manifestation occur prior to the cause :-/

Please post the prompts that will reproduce the pirated works verbatim.

You don't need to reproduce anything verbatim: a 1/4 resolution copy of a movie is still infringement even though it's only a quarter of the size.

And, as I pointed out elsewhere, the difference I was pointing out was an economic difference. You keep on ignoring that fact and thinking I'm talking about ethics, but I'm not.

I am talking about money now;

. I'm saying the difference is between spending trillions on training from raw data vs. spending billions on distilling that trained-from-raw-data model.

Firstly, they didn't spend trillions on training.

I am pointing out that literal trillions were spent to assemble the data that the AI corps then spent dozens of billions training from.

You ignored that fact completely.

Turns out, attention is all you need.

It's true that there are new skills to acquire

What new skills?

But that has absolutely nothing to do with the thing this thread is about.

That's how this thread started:

>>> That's the difference between innovating and copying/distilling someone else's innovation.

How is distillation by one party okay but distillation by another not okay, even though in the second case the other party is paying the asking fees?

It takes more computing power, and money, to pay for training an LLM, compared to distilling an LLM that someone else has already trained.

And that is still less money than it took to create that data in the first place, which the AI companies then gladly took to use for training.

The difference I was referring to was economic; I was not making an ethical judgment

What is the economic difference? LLMs have been trained on the results of billions of dollars worth of time, research, investment and expenditure. When you ask an LLM a question, they are giving you the results of those billions, or hundreds of billions, effort.

Those things weren't free; they cost money to produce! If anything, the OpenAI and Anthropics of the world got more economic value for free than the people distilling them did.

That's the difference between innovating and copying/distilling someone else's innovation.

Aren't the models from Anthropic and OpenAI simply the distilled work of everyone else who ever put their work online, or in books?

Why is their distillation okay, but other distillations not ok?

After seeing _what_ level of buffoonery, incompetence, and pure idiocy the gerrymandered American electoral system is capable of producing

I honestly can't tell if you're talking about the Right pandering (in words only) to the voters or the Left scoring own-goals in the last election?

I understand now, apologies.

I agree with you, that public anger still exists[1], but I will not consider that link I mentioned in my response as an example of the suppression of public anger.

A new law that specifically calls out people as criminals when they attempt to limit a person from entering their place of worship, etc is not a law suppressing the expression of public anger.

======================

[1] One can even make the argument that Trump got elected on the back of public anger. The values he espoused are unpalatable, but there is little question that the whole suppression of opinions in the last decade have had much to do with his popularity.

I gotta know, which of those specific points in your second citation do you have a problem with? The only one I can see having a problem with is "d. Subversion...".

I expect that most voters welcome efforts that aim to stop other groups using violence and intimidation to suppress their speech or legal religious activities.

The only problem with these proposed laws is the same problem with all existing laws - selective enforcement.

An AI bailout would be a poison pill that would electorally doom whichever party was behind it for decades.

One could only hope. In any case, in the short term, with AI having such a poor public-image story, if the Dems want to get back into power again they'd do everything they can to assure their voters that a bailout is not on the cards.

This is the first single-issue voter concern that has really popular support, and they'd be dumb for chasing identity politics again.

If a professor learns from multiple books, generalizes from them and then shares his knowledge he is providing a valuable service. Versus someone who makes a recording of the professor's lectures and resells them to undercut the professor--that guy is not providing a valuable service.

I'm confused now; isn't the LLM that trains on that professor's lectures, videos and textbooks undercutting him?

Where were you going with this?

The Chinese models are the result of just as many papers, GitHub repos, etc… AND the synthesized results of those.

Right, but they aren't the ones whining that other people are getting "the synthesised results" for free.

It’s in the same neighborhood but isn’t really apples to apples. Distilling LLMs is to take a synthesized result that comes from huge amounts of innovation and computation, while the other is scraping what already exists as is.

Hang on, why is scraping the public pool of knowledge not taking "a synthesized result that comes from huge amounts of innovation and computation"?

You think that that all those github repos that LLMs trained on, were not the result of innovation and computation?

How many years of human innovation and cycles of computation during compilation were involved in bringing something like GCC or LLVM to their current status?

Those LLMs trained on every single research paper available online - were those papers not the synthesised result of billions of dollars of research, effort and (importantly, for you anyway) computation?

LLMs trained on the collected works of every author in existence. Were all those works just "as is"?

It is fair to say you stole our multi-billion dollar intellectual output in that scenario.

No, we didn't. We simply took the model as-is.

We can't know if real science is happening in the background but I'd wager that the majority of these papers is not complete slop but real findings with AI generated text used to communicate it. If it was just straight slop I would be really worried.

Why don't you read them and see? The ones I looked at were clear slop.

if it makes communicating research more effective, while not reducing the quality of the output substantially, I see no issue.

That's a big "If".

If a research is good, the author still has to clear all the hurdles in publishing. "Writing your own paper" is just one more hurdle.

A possible conclusion for this could be: If the majority of CS papers is AI written, let's just accept this reality universally and stop worrying about it altogether.

That's just a different way of saying "if the majority of CS papers are crap, lets just accept this reality".

So, go on, publish away all your AI-induced "research", but the bar is slowly going to be raised anyway to reject that. That's how science always worked - when a bar is not sufficient to exclude the crap, it is raised.

Yeah but that's an issue with the researcher putting out a bad paper, and it suggests you'll have to reject more papers. We wouldn't ban email because many of the emails are spam, it just means we need new tools to filter out junk. AI will allow researchers to be more productive all together and take less time to publish a paper, which is good.

It's a signal:noise ratio thing. If 1 out of every 1000 AI-written papers are bad, it makes sense to put in a filter that auto-rejects any paper that has AI tells.

After all, if that 1 researcher was any good, he wouldn't have used AI to write the thing in the first place.

Publishing was always about getting past the filters. There's one more filter - "AI-generated content" - so do what you have to to get past it. IOW, write your own paper.

I run most professional statements and articles through LLMs before submission. This helps correct grammar and improves accessibility through better syntax (because I write exactly how I think).

The article doesn't seem to mention consideration of AI for polishing human work.

Because it isn't a consideration. You are what they are looking for.

But AWS is a VPS company. Who's managing those VPSes?

The same people who were logging into AWS and managing stuff there.

1-bit is not much though. Here's what I got:

Me:

Describe the process of pasteurisation

Response:

pasteurization is a, which a, the which which is, the and process, the the past, the and the, and and and past, and past, and and and and the, the and past, process is the is is is is, and the, past, and and future, process, and and and and and and and the, past, process, process, the the, the the, is and the, the the, and and and, and process, and and the, past, and and and past, and the, the, and the past, the the, process, process, and past, the past, past, the and, the past, and and and and and and and and and the, and and and and and and and, the the, the the, the or and and, the the, the and the, which the, and the, the the, past, and n the process, and and and and, past, and, and and, the past, and, the the, past,, and the, the the, the is the, past, and and and and and, and and and past, the and the, the the, the the, are and past, and which the, the and n, n the, the n past, past, n the, and n, the the process, which past, the the, the n, the the, the is past, the the, is, past, the the, past, and past, process, the the, the the, the and and the, and which past, the

(and that basically just goes on and on like that)