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
-
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?
-
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?
@MrBerard I don't, and I also don't think those things matter to an individual just trying to make something work for themselves.
-
@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.
Also, the ethics of re-use in art or literature are the artefact of IP laws that are recent compared to these creative endeavours.
Fashion doesn't really do patents and IP, and this is why it is crazy creative, arguably to a fault in the case of 'runway' fashion design.
-
Also, the ethics of re-use in art or literature are the artefact of IP laws that are recent compared to these creative endeavours.
Fashion doesn't really do patents and IP, and this is why it is crazy creative, arguably to a fault in the case of 'runway' fashion design.
@MrBerard We've ended up in a situation where people feel they can never look at the implementation of a proprietary codebase to learn how it works because they'll end up tainted, even if they're only going to reproduce the concept behind the code rather than the aspects directly covered by copyright, and a lot of the LLM discussion feels like it's pushing us towards an even harder level of copyright maximalism
-
@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 you have to look at the full picture. What you describe looks good because it looks like empowering: I know something about it, i early adopted a programming language whose promise is to empower everyone to build reliable software. But LLMs in their current political climate ain't that. They're not empowering because they create dependency to their use, and in doing so concentrate even more power in the hands of even fewer corpos. Letting you build stuff you don't understand is not power
-
@mjg59 you have to look at the full picture. What you describe looks good because it looks like empowering: I know something about it, i early adopted a programming language whose promise is to empower everyone to build reliable software. But LLMs in their current political climate ain't that. They're not empowering because they create dependency to their use, and in doing so concentrate even more power in the hands of even fewer corpos. Letting you build stuff you don't understand is not power
@mjg59 I know that "this time it's different and this technology is really bad for us" is a well trodden reactionary argument, and I'm truly sad to be on the reactionary side this time, but also *this time it's different*.
This time what's in the balance is the ability to apply cognition on one's own. Multiple studies point to the fact that using these systems are deskilling in major ways. This looks like a health hazard in the same way that asbestos is good for isolation but terrible for health -
@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 @luatic I think that's true if all you care about is the end product (without modification), not everything produced in the process. For literary work, source code would be similar to the original draft, which often has some extra information from the work, or author. Some are not interested in them, but some do. See also: https://mastodon.social/@godfat/116429967075899743
-
@mjg59 I know that "this time it's different and this technology is really bad for us" is a well trodden reactionary argument, and I'm truly sad to be on the reactionary side this time, but also *this time it's different*.
This time what's in the balance is the ability to apply cognition on one's own. Multiple studies point to the fact that using these systems are deskilling in major ways. This looks like a health hazard in the same way that asbestos is good for isolation but terrible for health@mjg59 also what I told you is truthful: I would probably not have picked up coding in the current environment. With AIgen menacing many creative jobs I might have encountered a vocational crisis. One we should perhaps anticipate in genZ today.
-
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.
@mjg59 this is a very disappointing thread to read.
-
@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
I have to think about that a little, my first hunch would be to say all of the above but there are constraints.
I do for example enjoy to write pure HTML for really old systems - that I do per hand, caring how the sourcecode looks. For more practical cases - meaning my company's webpage I still use HTML and make it accessible withouht Javascript. But I'd like to think that I'm not crazy so I use a static website generator, not caring about the look of the source as much.
So I'd have to say it's less the look of the code and more ideas, algorithms and especially efficiency!
I have of course played around with LLMs and will be more interested when I have the chance to run usable models locally. But when I did, I used it for explanations and learning, not to let the AI write the actuall code because I like to understand every single bit and like the very process of coding.
Much of this might have to do with the fact that I never had formal programming training and after almost 30 years are still in the wanting to learn more mindset. Having my code written by someone else would be contrary to that goal.
Also I'm not getting paid for my code. I do use it professionally as well as personally, but only for myself and some of it is released as Free Software. Would I have to compete for contracts, LLMs would probably look a lot more attractive. But then its work and not necessarily art
-
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 to
LLMs: (enable that)
Free software people: Oh no not like that@mjg59 Bait or retardation, call it.
>A major goal of free software is for individuals to be able to cause software to behave in the way they want it to
No, it's F-r-e-e-d-o-m, it's in the name if you could read.
>LLMs: (enable that)
(Don't think so)
>Free software people: Oh no not like that
"Sell your soul to word salad demon to be free(tm)(r)(c)" -
I have to think about that a little, my first hunch would be to say all of the above but there are constraints.
I do for example enjoy to write pure HTML for really old systems - that I do per hand, caring how the sourcecode looks. For more practical cases - meaning my company's webpage I still use HTML and make it accessible withouht Javascript. But I'd like to think that I'm not crazy so I use a static website generator, not caring about the look of the source as much.
So I'd have to say it's less the look of the code and more ideas, algorithms and especially efficiency!
I have of course played around with LLMs and will be more interested when I have the chance to run usable models locally. But when I did, I used it for explanations and learning, not to let the AI write the actuall code because I like to understand every single bit and like the very process of coding.
Much of this might have to do with the fact that I never had formal programming training and after almost 30 years are still in the wanting to learn more mindset. Having my code written by someone else would be contrary to that goal.
Also I'm not getting paid for my code. I do use it professionally as well as personally, but only for myself and some of it is released as Free Software. Would I have to compete for contracts, LLMs would probably look a lot more attractive. But then its work and not necessarily art@andi I'm not sure we necessarily disagree that much, then! I feel like there's a significant creative process getting me to the point where the code falls out, and that includes thinking about the overall structure, where components should be separated, where common logic should be merged, and so on. And to me the actual code that emerges is a representation of that work, rather than fundamentally *being* that work.
-
@mjg59 Bait or retardation, call it.
>A major goal of free software is for individuals to be able to cause software to behave in the way they want it to
No, it's F-r-e-e-d-o-m, it's in the name if you could read.
>LLMs: (enable that)
(Don't think so)
>Free software people: Oh no not like that
"Sell your soul to word salad demon to be free(tm)(r)(c)""The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish" is literally one of the FSF's four freedoms
-
"The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish" is literally one of the FSF's four freedoms
@mjg59 Not a lot of freedom in LLMs -
@mjg59 Not a lot of freedom in LLMs
@Pi_rat And?
-
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.
@mjg59
But we are. In fact my legal status is artist author of code. Because in France programming is recognised as an art when it is done with creativity. So you may be doing non creative code, just like some people write non creative text, or paint non creative paintings. A musician doing a piece for a commercial ad according to a specific script is very different from a musician performing his own creation on stage. The same applies to code. You can have creative and non creative code. -
@andi I'm not sure we necessarily disagree that much, then! I feel like there's a significant creative process getting me to the point where the code falls out, and that includes thinking about the overall structure, where components should be separated, where common logic should be merged, and so on. And to me the actual code that emerges is a representation of that work, rather than fundamentally *being* that work.
Maybe it also depends on the size of systems you tackle singlehandedly. Meaning, with AI you can try to do bigger things alone. But honestly, I would not trust this process enough to use it for things that actually matter.
-
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 to
LLMs: (enable that)
Free software people: Oh no not like that@mjg59 Are you using open-source hosted models or are we supposed to rent our tools from som company?
-
@MrBerard We've ended up in a situation where people feel they can never look at the implementation of a proprietary codebase to learn how it works because they'll end up tainted, even if they're only going to reproduce the concept behind the code rather than the aspects directly covered by copyright, and a lot of the LLM discussion feels like it's pushing us towards an even harder level of copyright maximalism
Erm...sure... Seems like you are now switching the fictional strawman against which you are arguing, but sure.
Then again, all creative endeavours require critical appreciation of prior work. No novelist doesn't read books, no miso doesn't listen to music.
So the point you are making, with which I agree, is in fact a point for coding being a creative endeavour (dunno if this implies an aesthetic dimension)
