Free software people: A major goal of free software is for individuals to be able to cause software to behave in the way they want it toLLMs: (enable that)Free software people: Oh no not like that
-
@mjg59 " Every line of code I write is a copy of another line of code I've read somewhere before." This cannot possibly be true. Surely you've written some original content, as a developer, which was unique or which created your own function, or did something you hadn't simply read before?
Even if it is somehow true for you, it is not at all how most developers write code.
@distrowatch I come up with a creative concept of how a function should behave, and then I mechanically churn out the code that results in it doing so. The individual lines are fundamentally uninteresting, it's the first step in the process that's where the creativity happens.
-
@mjg59 "i don't like programming and anyone who does is a liar" is a hill to die on, i guess
@phooky I greatly enjoy programming! I enjoy figuring out how to solve a problem, I enjoy having that solution exist in the real world, the actual process of writing the code is pleasing. But the code itself feels like the least interesting part of that?
-
This is such a bullshit, deprecating framing of what developers do. The fact that you also deprecate yourself doesn't make it any better.
Sure, the individual "line of code" may not be very unique. But the arrangement of many lines is. Your comparison is about equivalent to saying "hah, how can an author produce anything novel if he's just using the same old words from the English alphabet!"
@luatic Let me try to express this differently. A literary work consists of both a plot and the work expressing that plot. Both of these are extremely creative - a mechanical implementation of a compelling plot has little value. For software, the concept and the logical structure are where almost all of the value is, the actual choice of words in the implementation is pretty uninteresting in comparison
-
@mjg59@nondeterministic.computer If you want to use LLMs to make a software what you want, feel free to do it in a private forks. Private forks for yourself are fine. Private is private.
But its also the freedom of the developer/maintainer of the software to not allow such changes upstream or force such changes to be marked.@neintonine Agree
-
Pragmatic standpoint is completely valid, but don't forget why do we have writing systems: to convey information. That's the basic need. So taking the same pragmatic approach we don't need writers nor poets nor prose or anything of sorts: language exists to transfer data from human to human, and don't you dare to find any of that serialization into english/anything beautiful. Is that it?
@bsandro Not at all! But almost all users of software typically never see the underlying code, which feels like a significant distinction from literature
-
@distrowatch I come up with a creative concept of how a function should behave, and then I mechanically churn out the code that results in it doing so. The individual lines are fundamentally uninteresting, it's the first step in the process that's where the creativity happens.
@mjg59 @distrowatch "behavior" isn't the limits of the creative parts of even good code, much less the code-as-art we should strive to.
-
@bazkie A completely legitimate thing to do if all you care about is getting through the door
-
@lodurel If someone is interested in coding then they should learn to code! I am 100% in favour of artisinal handcrafted code and the process of learning how to create it. But there's plenty of people who don't have the desire or time to learn, and giving them a way to modify code to behave the way they want anyway seems good?
@mjg59 @lodurel there are glaring issues with LLMs surrounding ethics, among many other things (that you are agreeing with elsewhere in the thread!). therefore, the free software advocates are not going to be blindly pro-LLM. that’s how social movements work. those issues don’t disappear just because the technology makes life a little bit easier for some people
-
@mjg59 you’re doing the thing where you’re romanticizing another profession by assuming the grass is greener. most writers are not novelists. most are writing pretty dry ad copy or instruction manuals or something, just like most programmers aren’t writing especially novel or beautiful algorithms (or, for that matter, video games where algorithmic processes evoke a feeling). you’re just confusing form and content here
@glyph Mm, but when we talk about the ethical impact of LLMs it tends to be focused on how it impacts artists rather than the people doing wrote output (but I'd also argue that there is significant creativity in the actual writing of a good instruction manual in a way that isn't true of most code).
But maybe I haven't been clear. To me, the algorithm is the creative part of this, not the code that embodies the algorithm. But despite that, I'd have no ethical concerns about reimplementing it.
-
@mjg59 years of reputation thrown away on a single thread: a masterclass
@rafaelmartins What's the point of reputation if not to be able to burn it
-
@mjg59 But why would LLM trash solve ANY need, locally or globally, Matthew? That's the real question.
Your opinion on this matter honestly ought to be discarded without consideration: you have a naked conflict of interest in plain sight, corrupting your judgment. Your livelihood depends upon #Nvidia and its dedication to corrupting all of computing with LLM gibberish (and, in the process, turning all software into mere tools of corporate surveillance.)
@mxchara The only LLM I use is a local model running on the Apple Silicon device on my desk, and it's been fun figuring out what it can do (more than I expected!). This kind of thing is going to be increasingly viable over time and is what I'm interested in in this respect. Can it take existing source code and add a new feature? Yes, and that seems like it would be helpful for people who don't know how to code! It's not how *I'd* approach the problem, and I don't see that changing.
-
@mjg59 you're a genetics Ph.D., Matthew? do you mind if I ask why you quit on science to chase after computer money?
@mxchara I'm better at computers than I am at science, and I spend a whole bunch of my time working on free software for no compensation so
-
its all to easy to taint known good code, on sharepoint now everything has sprouted a co-pilot button tagged as "made available by your org tech team"
a totally false statement that suggest your employer wants you to use it
that's why all the programmers had an all hands teams telling them in no uncertain terms no AI code was to be created & would be deemed as instant dismissal offence
@dekkzz78 A completely sensible position for a company to take
-
Maybe it is because I do not write code for a living. But boy are you wrong on so many levels!
I don't even want to demonize LLMs, they have their place _especially_ in coding because this might be one of the very few comparably deterministic fields.
But when I write code I _want_ it to be art, nothing more, nothing less. And I will never let that go@andi Is it the actual code that's the art for you, or its structure? The algorithms it expresses? The functionality it implements? I'm genuinely curious here - I'm certainly open to the idea that I approach this differently to others
-
@mxchara I'm better at computers than I am at science, and I spend a whole bunch of my time working on free software for no compensation so
@mjg59 Well that's an answer! I'm not great at science either because my head doesn't cooperate, but I decided to go into the humanities instead.
I'm trying to sum up my objection to the LLM trend, once we attempt to separate the LLM from the thoroughly corrupt apparatus of corporate technology that's spawned the latest craze. I try to remember that the current crop of techbros didn't invent the LLM after all; as with all their faux innovations, they appropriated the LLM from earlier work. So let's assume for the moment that there was actually some value to the brute-force LLM technique, and you don't care that it's sold fraudulently as if it were superintelligent.
Here's what your proposing, as far as I can see: it's acceptable for someone who doesn't know how to code, to nevertheless contribute to developing software which you want other people to use (in other words, this ought not to be about yourself, but about the users upon whom you propose to inflict LLM-modified software) because you think that it's acceptable to contribute code that you didn't actually write, generated by a black box whose internal workings or technological context don't actually mean that much to you—because you care only about its output.
-
@mjg59 @lodurel there are glaring issues with LLMs surrounding ethics, among many other things (that you are agreeing with elsewhere in the thread!). therefore, the free software advocates are not going to be blindly pro-LLM. that’s how social movements work. those issues don’t disappear just because the technology makes life a little bit easier for some people
@epetousis @lodurel Oh yeah 100%
-
@mjg59 Well that's an answer! I'm not great at science either because my head doesn't cooperate, but I decided to go into the humanities instead.
I'm trying to sum up my objection to the LLM trend, once we attempt to separate the LLM from the thoroughly corrupt apparatus of corporate technology that's spawned the latest craze. I try to remember that the current crop of techbros didn't invent the LLM after all; as with all their faux innovations, they appropriated the LLM from earlier work. So let's assume for the moment that there was actually some value to the brute-force LLM technique, and you don't care that it's sold fraudulently as if it were superintelligent.
Here's what your proposing, as far as I can see: it's acceptable for someone who doesn't know how to code, to nevertheless contribute to developing software which you want other people to use (in other words, this ought not to be about yourself, but about the users upon whom you propose to inflict LLM-modified software) because you think that it's acceptable to contribute code that you didn't actually write, generated by a black box whose internal workings or technological context don't actually mean that much to you—because you care only about its output.
@mjg59 Most software is already garbage, because this attitude towards programming is already the norm. The LLM is making it a million times worse, but it's already been a problem: programmers don't seem to care about understanding anything, they're increasingly ignorant even of how their computers work (and thus wish to abstract all the messy details away with vague talk of "compute" and "the cloud" and so forth) and they seem absolutely determined not to understand how LLMs work because that would ruin their magic. All the ridiculous blithering about how maybe these very obviously stupid brute-force machines are about to become "AGI superintelligence" merely seems conducive to covering up that fundamental lack of curiosity or willingness to expend thought on what, to computing professionals, has clearly become a heedless automated process of extruding code without even knowing how the code works.
You seem to wish to accelerate this process. Why should I be happy about it?
-
@mjg59 Well that's an answer! I'm not great at science either because my head doesn't cooperate, but I decided to go into the humanities instead.
I'm trying to sum up my objection to the LLM trend, once we attempt to separate the LLM from the thoroughly corrupt apparatus of corporate technology that's spawned the latest craze. I try to remember that the current crop of techbros didn't invent the LLM after all; as with all their faux innovations, they appropriated the LLM from earlier work. So let's assume for the moment that there was actually some value to the brute-force LLM technique, and you don't care that it's sold fraudulently as if it were superintelligent.
Here's what your proposing, as far as I can see: it's acceptable for someone who doesn't know how to code, to nevertheless contribute to developing software which you want other people to use (in other words, this ought not to be about yourself, but about the users upon whom you propose to inflict LLM-modified software) because you think that it's acceptable to contribute code that you didn't actually write, generated by a black box whose internal workings or technological context don't actually mean that much to you—because you care only about its output.
@mxchara Oh gosh no - I'm not proposing that at all. I'm saying that if someone who doesn't know how to code has software that doesn't do what they need it to do, an LLM would potentially allow them to change that.
I don't think anyone should ever contribute code they don't understand. I don't think anyone should ever encourage other people to run code they had a machine regurgitate without understanding it themselves. I don't think LLMs are the future of free software development.
-
@glyph Mm, but when we talk about the ethical impact of LLMs it tends to be focused on how it impacts artists rather than the people doing wrote output (but I'd also argue that there is significant creativity in the actual writing of a good instruction manual in a way that isn't true of most code).
But maybe I haven't been clear. To me, the algorithm is the creative part of this, not the code that embodies the algorithm. But despite that, I'd have no ethical concerns about reimplementing it.
@mjg59 @glyph But there are many possible implementations of a technique. How do you go about distinguishing between them or choosing one? Isn’t that creativity?
You could say any variation in the implementation that has mechanical consequences (I.e. not just syntax or style) means it’s a different algorithm, but then you would be acknowledging that the code itself matters.
I guess to an extent the concrete implementation *is* the algorithm?
-
@phooky I greatly enjoy programming! I enjoy figuring out how to solve a problem, I enjoy having that solution exist in the real world, the actual process of writing the code is pleasing. But the code itself feels like the least interesting part of that?
@mjg59 playing music is pleasing. is the instrument the least interesting part of it? is the score? are the brushstrokes the least interesting part of a painting? it depends what you're looking at, and what the artist enjoys. it's completely valid that you think that the code itself is boring, but understand that other people find different forms of value in the work they do, and none of these opinions are universal.
