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 so LLM slop is probably once again a class problem and as it not only keeps people from getting better quality goods but also denies people knowing certain skills of earning their livelihood by offering these low quality solutions you can not possibly compete with.
@Nfoonf The irony here is that now I have money I would rather pay people to solve these problems
-
@dekkzz78 There's truth in what you're saying and also a lot of it is the same shape as arguing against mass produced clothing over hand tailored clothing
true, but then its down to values & how you prioritise such things
wrt coding specifically companies are worried about skill loss & being dependant plus it ties the seniors into code review all the time
also I know 2 auto companies that have banned them due to creep into safety critical code
-
@dekkzz78 There's truth in what you're saying and also a lot of it is the same shape as arguing against mass produced clothing over hand tailored clothing
plus mass produced clothing wont cause a plane to drop out of the sky
-
true, but then its down to values & how you prioritise such things
wrt coding specifically companies are worried about skill loss & being dependant plus it ties the seniors into code review all the time
also I know 2 auto companies that have banned them due to creep into safety critical code
@dekkzz78 I am absolutely not going to argue that LLMs replace the need for skilled developers! But many people who want to modify software are just doing it for personal use and if we argue using LLMs for that is unethical we risk alienating them all
-
plus mass produced clothing wont cause a plane to drop out of the sky
@dekkzz78 Safety critical and security critical software should always have an appropriately skilled human in the loop
-
@tthbaltazar I agree with your distinction, and also both outcomes can involve me either writing by hand or engaging sufficiently clearly with an LLM to get that outcome.
But, well, we all know software engineering isn't what we all engage in. Sometimes we just want to fix a thing and we don't want to write tests and we don't want it to be perfect and there's value in that!
@mjg59 no amount of prompt clarity is going to get you a correct/"according to spec" outcome; LLMs are categorically incapable of that
-
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 it is absolutely wild to see self-described free software enthusiasts cheerfully be on the same side of copyright maximalism as Disney, RIAA and MPA
-
@mjg59 no amount of prompt clarity is going to get you a correct/"according to spec" outcome; LLMs are categorically incapable of that
@dngrs sure! Define smaller blocks, examine them, modify if the output isn't what you need
-
Clearly my most unpopular thread ever, so let me add a clarification: submitting LLM generated code you don't understand to an upstream project is absolute bullshit and you should never do that. Having an LLM turn an existing codebase into something that meets your local needs? Do it. The code may be awful, it may break stuff you don't care about, and that's what all my early patches to free software looked like. It's ok to solve your problem locally.
@mjg59 I completely agree, but I'd add a couple of things... if you understand the code, then LLMs are just providing acceleration to your efforts. Also, solving problems locally for yourself is great, but there's no reason why you shouldn't share the solution in case it helps someone else. Just be transparent about the possible quality concerns.
-
@promovicz Man in an ideal world sure, but in the world we live in people frequently write code for themselves and not others. How many projects have weird macros or unhelpful comments or quirky norms? To the extent that code is creative it frequently hinders understnding and reuse, not aids it.
@mjg59 But, why does that matter? Copyright protection does not depend on quality, usability or popularity. Bad art is protected. Even mainstream pop is protected, and whether its reuse is any good is kinda off-topic.
As a hacker I can also believe in a lot of "copyleft" ideas, but either of these concepts are there to protect a social (maybe legal) balance. You end up co-arguing a "might makes right" perspective, and risk devolving into fascism.
-
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 posting this on Mastodon.. looking for Friday night entertainment
-
@mjg59 But, why does that matter? Copyright protection does not depend on quality, usability or popularity. Bad art is protected. Even mainstream pop is protected, and whether its reuse is any good is kinda off-topic.
As a hacker I can also believe in a lot of "copyleft" ideas, but either of these concepts are there to protect a social (maybe legal) balance. You end up co-arguing a "might makes right" perspective, and risk devolving into fascism.
@promovicz I think a set of instructions to a machine should not be copyrightable and the rest flows from there.
-
@mjg59 it is absolutely wild to see self-described free software enthusiasts cheerfully be on the same side of copyright maximalism as Disney, RIAA and MPA
@mjg59 sorry, last one I promise
EDIT: since in this timeline we can't have nice things, I'm told the tug-of-war comic author is an absolute tosser, so dropped the meme. Originally it was the meme with foss devs using llms and microsoft on the "all software must be free" side, and free software activists and disney/riaa/mpa on the "copyright maximalism" side
-
@mjg59 sorry, last one I promise
EDIT: since in this timeline we can't have nice things, I'm told the tug-of-war comic author is an absolute tosser, so dropped the meme. Originally it was the meme with foss devs using llms and microsoft on the "all software must be free" side, and free software activists and disney/riaa/mpa on the "copyright maximalism" side
@bluca I do see your point and also please do not post Stonetoss at me
-
@barnoid Huh interesting, that's really not my experience of writing code - I sit down with a formed idea of what needs to happen and then I smash keys until it's there. And now I'm curious whether there's a real disconnect between with different models of coding.
@mjg59 @barnoid Yeah I think many of us need the back and forth with the compiler to fully flesh out an idea - it's certainly something that I've heard other people say as well.
And not just coding. Even emails or just plain old speech. Explaining an idea to someone else often results in me realising it wasn't fully formed after all, and the process of communicating it to someone else forces me to make it better. -
@bluca I do see your point and also please do not post Stonetoss at me
@bluca (The original version of this is pretty anti-semitic and the author is a fucking nazi)
-
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 I have also had the retained knowledge concept explained to me by a lawyer back in the days when I used to work with proprietary code bases
I wonder how quickly the various test cases will work their way through the courts before the LLM situation is clearer. They are doing the same things as us humans but are able to do it with much better recall. -
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 hey, I'm all for laundering IP, I just need to make sure it launders propiretary IP as well as open-source!
Faceless corps: NO NOT LIKE THAT!!
-
Clearly my most unpopular thread ever, so let me add a clarification: submitting LLM generated code you don't understand to an upstream project is absolute bullshit and you should never do that. Having an LLM turn an existing codebase into something that meets your local needs? Do it. The code may be awful, it may break stuff you don't care about, and that's what all my early patches to free software looked like. It's ok to solve your problem locally.
@mjg59 strictly local needs, you do you.
If using a giant model like Claude, you might want to consider what remodelling that code will cost the planet in terms of direct carbon output, electricity generation, water pollution, amortised environmental cost of building the Pollution Centres and the ongoing damage to local communities of the Pollution Centres.
If you can live with all that? Sure, use your magic auto complete. Just don't expect others to not judge you for it. Not saying I would, btw, but that's the argument .
-
Clearly my most unpopular thread ever, so let me add a clarification: submitting LLM generated code you don't understand to an upstream project is absolute bullshit and you should never do that. Having an LLM turn an existing codebase into something that meets your local needs? Do it. The code may be awful, it may break stuff you don't care about, and that's what all my early patches to free software looked like. It's ok to solve your problem locally.
@mjg59 I think the negativity comes from the fact that a lot of floss developers have other reasons why they work on projects besides scratching their own itch - "meeting the local needs" as you put it.
That is expanding their knowledge and, sometimes even the enjoyment of the programming act itself.
So if you treat open source development as a learning experience and an artistic expression, you're automatically going to balk at something that would take that away.
