I have used the new template below to show how it looks. We can add more details to the linked CONTRIBUTING.md in the pop repo.
I have not included any LLM (also known as AI) generated content in...
For me it’s the exact extreme opposite than your first point: The LLMs as death of copyright could be an actual food thing.
The issue im struggling with is the ecological and economic harm. It feels a bit as if the steam machine would’ve been invented but you’d throw in babies in addition to coal.
For the plus sides you’re right (as in: I agree so it must be ;) )b- with one minor exception: the vibe coding part is not bad in itself. I actually used vibe coding as a very hard exercise: develop something and find ways to estimate its quality and performance but you are not allowed to look into the code! It’s a fun brain teaser because it forces a pure outcome-perspective. The code itself is irrelevant for this, it’s the mental training that’s really interesting.
Oh except people who publish vibe coded stuff as a cool new project without disclaimer. Or as PRs. Or as … Well anything where do see itself is actually important.
death of copyright could be an actual [g]ood thing
It could. It would assuredly be a boon to the development of de-build chains: decompilers and the like.
But, as long as Disney and Amazon get protections, I’m going to advocate for the protection of works by independent artists and coders, particularly CC-SA, GPL, or AGPL licensed works. This does mean resisting LLMs (and other generative AI) on copyright grounds. (Even if on the other hand I might advocate for the undoing of copyrights generally.)
And, even if that class of issue were settled, I also agree the current state of generative AI is a travesty to be resisted on ecological and labor terms. As just one example of ecological harm, MS undid years of sustainability work in service to Copilot. As one example of harming Workers, Amnesty International has identified human rights abuses in the training of several model brands.
The vibe coding thing IS bad though… The code being stolen isn’t the code generally written by big companies (because that’s in private repos)… It’s also stealing GPL / MIT code too, and not crediting it. And then the vibe coding bros take it, boast they made it, don’t give credit, don’t use it to improve AI, and they sell that code
I’d have no issue if it credited the original projects, but it doesn’t… And thats why nobody can hold them responsible.
The ecological harm is a fair point though. They’re setting up gas plants to run these things, instead of forcing renewables.
Oh the corporate bullshit I’m with you - but I’m opposed to copyright as a mechanism, that’s why I focused on it. Code can’t be “stolen” the same way a movie can’t be stolen in my book. That said:
With the crediting you’re absolutely right, I had not even thought about it and that’s not what I intended to imply. Thank you!
Although I lack the fantasy how this could look like. I’d be very happy if LLMs would be waived the “by” aspect as it’s in possible to link a generation to a dataset - but the training data has to be publicly available under the most generous licence consumed.
For me it’s the exact extreme opposite than your first point: The LLMs as death of copyright could be an actual food thing.
The issue im struggling with is the ecological and economic harm. It feels a bit as if the steam machine would’ve been invented but you’d throw in babies in addition to coal.
For the plus sides you’re right (as in: I agree so it must be ;) )b- with one minor exception: the vibe coding part is not bad in itself. I actually used vibe coding as a very hard exercise: develop something and find ways to estimate its quality and performance but you are not allowed to look into the code! It’s a fun brain teaser because it forces a pure outcome-perspective. The code itself is irrelevant for this, it’s the mental training that’s really interesting.
Oh except people who publish vibe coded stuff as a cool new project without disclaimer. Or as PRs. Or as … Well anything where do see itself is actually important.
It could. It would assuredly be a boon to the development of de-build chains: decompilers and the like.
But, as long as Disney and Amazon get protections, I’m going to advocate for the protection of works by independent artists and coders, particularly CC-SA, GPL, or AGPL licensed works. This does mean resisting LLMs (and other generative AI) on copyright grounds. (Even if on the other hand I might advocate for the undoing of copyrights generally.)
And, even if that class of issue were settled, I also agree the current state of generative AI is a travesty to be resisted on ecological and labor terms. As just one example of ecological harm, MS undid years of sustainability work in service to Copilot. As one example of harming Workers, Amnesty International has identified human rights abuses in the training of several model brands.
The vibe coding thing IS bad though… The code being stolen isn’t the code generally written by big companies (because that’s in private repos)… It’s also stealing GPL / MIT code too, and not crediting it. And then the vibe coding bros take it, boast they made it, don’t give credit, don’t use it to improve AI, and they sell that code
I’d have no issue if it credited the original projects, but it doesn’t… And thats why nobody can hold them responsible.
The ecological harm is a fair point though. They’re setting up gas plants to run these things, instead of forcing renewables.
Oh the corporate bullshit I’m with you - but I’m opposed to copyright as a mechanism, that’s why I focused on it. Code can’t be “stolen” the same way a movie can’t be stolen in my book. That said:
With the crediting you’re absolutely right, I had not even thought about it and that’s not what I intended to imply. Thank you!
Although I lack the fantasy how this could look like. I’d be very happy if LLMs would be waived the “by” aspect as it’s in possible to link a generation to a dataset - but the training data has to be publicly available under the most generous licence consumed.
But that’s wishful thinking, I know.