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 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.
-
Look, coders, we are not writers. There's no way to turn "increment this variable" into life changing prose. The creativity exists outside the code. It always has done and it always will do. Let it go.
I see what you're saying but also restructuring or making major changes to a novel *does* remind me of refactoring code. I think that's the part of coding that feels most like fiction writing to me - the editing.
-
Personally I'm not going to literally copy code from a codebase under an incompatible license because that is what the law says, but have I read proprietary code and learned the underlying creative aspect and then written new code that embodies it? Yes! Anyone claiming otherwise is lying!
@mjg59@nondeterministic.computer If what you are claiming is true - that most code does not creatively express the underlying idea - then it is ineligible for copyright in the United States.
(Though I’m certainly not going to argue that judges understand the creative expression of ideas through code better than you.)
-
@mjg59@nondeterministic.computer If what you are claiming is true - that most code does not creatively express the underlying idea - then it is ineligible for copyright in the United States.
(Though I’m certainly not going to argue that judges understand the creative expression of ideas through code better than you.)
@tryst That was the state of affairs until 1983!
-
@bsandro Not at all! But almost all users of software typically never see the underlying code, which feels like a significant distinction from literature
Okay, that was an extreme example but still.
But akin to woodworking or welding or anything like that coding is craftsmanship; ofcourse it is possible to make chairs en masse on a factory, but imagine you spent your career building them by hand. Why wouldn't you be proud of small bits and parts of every item you've made?
Just because some crafts are not as old - it doesn't devalue them.
-
Okay, that was an extreme example but still.
But akin to woodworking or welding or anything like that coding is craftsmanship; ofcourse it is possible to make chairs en masse on a factory, but imagine you spent your career building them by hand. Why wouldn't you be proud of small bits and parts of every item you've made?
Just because some crafts are not as old - it doesn't devalue them.
@bsandro If I design a wonderful physical object and then program the CNC machine to make it, I'm proud of the design work rather than proud of putting the numbers in the CNC machine. To me, the actual act of coding feels much closer to that than it does to producing a hand crafted version of the same thing
-
@MrBerard I agree that code *can* be beautiful, but the overwhelming majority of it is not in a way that is very distinct from, say, literature, where even the most churned out boilerplate nonsense still embodies some level of emotion
Sure. But if it's just a matter of degree within the extant corpus, it is not a categorical argument.
Even the most boring code can be made significantly less elegant whilst remaining functionally identical.
Which means that although, maybe, sure it never crossed the threshold into 'beauty', there is an aesthetic dimension, which is overlapping with readability and maintainability.
So it is a dimension of code quality - not inappropriate to assess LLM generated code on it.
-
Sure. But if it's just a matter of degree within the extant corpus, it is not a categorical argument.
Even the most boring code can be made significantly less elegant whilst remaining functionally identical.
Which means that although, maybe, sure it never crossed the threshold into 'beauty', there is an aesthetic dimension, which is overlapping with readability and maintainability.
So it is a dimension of code quality - not inappropriate to assess LLM generated code on it.
@MrBerard I was unclear in what the motivation for this assertion was, and I think that's left things confusing. I don't think LLMs produce code that is anywhere near equivalent to a skilled coder in terms of clarity or structure without significant handholding. It's more about whether I think the reuse of material is inherently ethically questionable in the way I think it likely is for literature or art or music.
-
@MrBerard I was unclear in what the motivation for this assertion was, and I think that's left things confusing. I don't think LLMs produce code that is anywhere near equivalent to a skilled coder in terms of clarity or structure without significant handholding. It's more about whether I think the reuse of material is inherently ethically questionable in the way I think it likely is for literature or art or music.
Yeah, but you chose to make that point through aesthetics for some reason.
I don't know that people object to LLM coding in Open Source for reuse or IP, or originality angle? Or even aesthetics, actually
More that the capacity to generate massive SloC count is actually not a point in favour of maintainability, quality and safety?
How do you counter the argument that LLM contribs make repos less safe, more bloated, cause more review work unless you're willing to let a vuln thru?
