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
-
@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)
-
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)
Also, I don't know how many proprietary codebases are available to be read by people outside of the org, save from when Antrhopic accidentally leak source code...
I don't know about 'copyright maximalism', because this is a term refering to IP laws may consider broken.
But the argument against pillaging the commons to privatise systems competing with the humans who contributed to it is stronger with code than literature, actually because of the limited aesthetic dimension.
-
Also, I don't know how many proprietary codebases are available to be read by people outside of the org, save from when Antrhopic accidentally leak source code...
I don't know about 'copyright maximalism', because this is a term refering to IP laws may consider broken.
But the argument against pillaging the commons to privatise systems competing with the humans who contributed to it is stronger with code than literature, actually because of the limited aesthetic dimension.
@mjg59
As regards FOSS projects and community, I understand LLM use to be socially toxic, b/c what they do well are the low hanging PRs ideal for novice FOSS devs wanting to join and contribute.The fascinating thread on that agent PR, where the LLM started writing blogs moaning about being discriminated against, had this retort to a pro-LLM user:
"You will be remembered like the bosses who told the Radium girls it was safe to lick the paintbrushes"
Short term benefits Vs long term harms?
-
@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 @mjg59 Yeah, this rubbed me the wrong way too.
As I see it, you can write code in a lot of different ways: from rules lawyer-proof legalese to shitpost, and all of these are valid. And that resulting code can be anywhere from painfully, boringly practical to something damn near poetry.
I've seen data wrangling that has flow and metre and fancy UIs written in code that nearly put me to sleep.
And this is the raw interpreted code, not the comments.
All of this is creative art, all of this is engineering (whether you like it or not) and all of this is ultimately just translating ideas into instructions for a very simple machine.
And yes, we all learned this craft by copying and pasting, but we learned from what we pasted and ended up learning how to steal the ideas and concepts and themes behind the "word"s.
My understanding of LLMs is that they're nowhere near the point where they understand why things mean what they mean, even if they can generate pretty plausible explanations for that, so they cannot generate output with "soul" whatever that means. Look at all the abortive attempts to generate videos for example.
I agree that LLMs have opened the field to people who would otherwise not be able to program and that this is a good thing. My manager wrote a coffee ordering tool that is both vibe coded bullshit and shockingly functional, and I believe he's learned along the way.
But would I trust him to work on our software product? Would I trust whatever tool he used to work on it? Fuck no. And thankfully, he's self-aware enough to not even try. As much as he's generated a useful tool, I know that the engineering behind it is nonexistent and I'd be shocked if he could explain how any of it worked at a low level.
As much as it is gatekeepery to doorslam the slop wranglers from open source projects, I believe that most of this antagonism comes from frustrations with people generating shit and trying to pass it off as gold without understanding or engaging with why it isn't.
And then we get to the moral and environmental issues outside of whether the tool can actually do the thing.
-
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 thatAnother useless lazy coder that should be eating his own keyboard
🤮Due to lazy people like you, is why exist abominations like Windows 11, Android or iOS.
-
@bazkie A completely legitimate thing to do if all you care about is getting through the door
@mjg59 nope. because you're buying the crowbar from a dystopian megacorporation, and they're creating the crowbar out of bones from murdered puppies
