olalonde

I don't think that's true. I think most people are naturally against this idea emotionally. Why would humans not want to be special? I know I wish it wasn't true.

Probably not the author's point but to me, the takeaway is that these people are driven by emotion and can't be won over with rational arguments. They have an emotional attachment to their old ways, a fear of being obsoleted, a wish that there is something truly special and mysterious about humans, etc.

The top AI labs still employ thousands of software engineers. If it was dead, they'd be among the first to stop employing them. If by "software engineering is dead" you mean that using AI coding tools is now part of the job description, I think that's largely correct.

The quote accurately mirrors a lot of the anti-AI sentiment in my experience. The pushback comes from a visceral, emotional aversion, and the technical or economic arguments proposed against it are largely post-hoc rationalizations.

This HN notion that ads shape everyone's behaviour (except me, obviously) is so disconnected from my experience that I am sometimes confused by it.

Same. They've also never really bothered me, especially billboards and street advertisements. I was actually sad when they got rid of the neon signs in Hong Kong.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/08/fading-glory-t...

Agreed that it would potentially be a bigger concern but it seems they support both "Free Software" and "Open Source". See my other reply here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49004912

I don't think they have ulterior motives because I do, I think that because of the loaded language they use (e.g. "taking a stand against AI", "LLM-extrusions") and the dubious reasons they came up with.

It's been decided pretty much everywhere that LLM output is not copyrighted by the LLM vendor. The only realistic risk here is for vibecoded code to be considered public domain, if too little human input was involved, but public domain is functionally equivalent to a very permissive open source license (e.g. MIT minus attribution).

Well, not quite, it would still have to deal with handling and moderating copyright claims under German law. So while it's not a legal issue, it's definitely overhead for a nonprofit.

Who is sending all those takedown requests on vibe coded repos? My guess is that this is absolutely not an issue that they actually have.

Based on what?

LLMs produce buggy code. Humans do too. Like you mentioned, it's difficult to say one is categorically worse than the other since both humans and LLMs vary so much. By "less likely" I was just thinking about the fact that LLMs often refuse to intentionally produce harmful code.

Anyways, my point was that this is just a pretext. If by some objective measure they discovered that vibe coded repos were less likely to contain "harmful code", do you really think they would enact the opposite policy (e.g. ban non vibe coded projects)? Don't think so.

It would be cool if they just admitted that this is ideologically motivated rather than hide behind pragmatic excuses.

1) "unclear copyright status"

Even if the copyright concern was legitimate (highly doubt so), Codeberg would be fully protected under safe harbor laws.

2) "little safeguards to ensure that they do not include harmful code"

Inclusion of harmful code is no more likely than human-extruded code (probably less actually).

I simply meant that users ought to be free to choose between a product that offers a free ad-supported tier and one that is paid and ad-free. And I do believe that letting morons choose for themselves is the lesser evil.

Unpopular opinion: I think users should be free to choose.

Regurgitating existing ideas is not copyright infringement. Reproducing works verbatim is and AI companies already implement guardrails to prevent that.

I still can’t wrap my head around how transferring all assets from a non-profit foundation to a for-profit company was legal.

It can do it over 8 hours while you're sleeping though.

Dupe:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48955929

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48956153

Back then there was no versioning. When you imported a URL, you had to hope that all your projects and transient dependencies happened to be compatible with whatever commit was currently sitting on the master branch. Because one update could silently break an unrelated project on your machine, adding a dependency was a bigger decision. That naturally led the ecosystem to favor fewer, larger libraries.

PS: it looks like this issue was addressed in 2019 with the introduction of Go Modules.

Interesting. When I learned Go a while ago, it didn't have a package manager. You just pulled down master branches directly into your global GOPATH. So pulling in a dependency was a big decision and people naturally favored "batteries included" libraries. That probably still permeates the culture today.

I'd say ease of package management. You can see this with Python too.

It depends what you mean by "technology" but if you include hypothetical milestones like AGI/ASI, it is the last technology we need to invent.

I thought that's what it was going to be when I read the submission title. But like the other methods of obfuscation, it only works until the model learns about it.

Unauthorized credit card transactions. Adult content, for example, is known to have a high chargeback rates.

You said it was about morality, so it was not clear you knew it was actually about risk. Each payment company has to set their own policies because regulations tend to be (intentionally) vague and not all companies have the same risk tolerance. If the legal risks weren't there, Stripe would absolutely accept these categories. You should really complain about the dumb AML regulations instead.

It has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with compliance and fraud risk.

Don't forget that part about understanding and being responsible. It's important.

Shouldn't open-source projects like Linux operate under the assumption that contributors might immediately disappear?

What is Linux with agent support?

They play better with statically typed languages, not compiled ones in particular. Rust's typing is stricter than Typescript though so that probably helps.

There's an important difference between "knowing" and "believing".

I second. I live right above a shopping mall and next to Dongmen, which is easily one of the largest shopping areas in the world, yet I still end up ordering most things online.

True, but we know Opus is more like a "spear" and a progressive enhancement over it still leaves us firmly in the "spear" category, not the "nuke" category. Drawing lines makes sense, but this is premature. Even if you draw the line at human level intelligence, we still seem to be pretty far off.

Milton Friedman was prescient on this:

The two biggest enemies of the free market are two separate groups: my academic colleagues and business people. Business people are enemies of free markets, not friends.

[...]

The business people are just the opposite. They're all in favor of freedom for everybody else, and at the drop of a hat you can get any leading businessman to give you an eloquent speech on the virtues of a free market. But when it comes to their own business, they want to go down to Washington and get a special tariff to protect their business. They want a special tax deduction. They want a tax subsidy. And Chrysler is on the verge of failing, which it should have done. It should have been allowed to fail. Chrysler goes down and exercises political influence and tries to get the government to lend it money to subsidize it.

So businessmen in general — not all, there have been some notable exceptions — and I don't want to include everybody. But in the main, most businessmen are enemies of free markets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhgaPVO8aw8