I have for example hypersensitivity to radio waves. I know how my body reacts and how it feels when I'm exposed to such radiation, especially during vaxxine toxicity flareups.
Yet, I have to be screened by nurses, go through appointments with psychologists, and in general wasting a lot of time when I could just convince a model to prescribe the radium water I need.
It would be also be great if people with libedo issues could then get a medical prescription for porn, which if I know my AI, and I dont, could be accomodated instantly during the 'examination'
> why bother to create new, free materials on the internet when it will just get scooped up by an LLM with no attribution to me
Can confirm. I've personally stopped releasing new open source code, and stopped contributing to projects.
Until copyright laws are updated to protect my work from being stolen and my labor exploited by AI companies, there's zero incentive for me to participate in open source.
Even OSI's cuck licenses are being cucked beyond reason. I didn't think that was possible.
AIs make short work of proprietary code as well. Reverse engineering has become trivial. Not releasing any code whatsoever is the only possible defense now. I've made my peace with that.
What worries me is the fact AIs render licenses irrelevant. What's the point of starting an AGPLv3 project when AIs can just study it and make a proprietary equivalent? The free software movement no longer has any leverage.
I also don't feel any sense of accomplishment anymore. Software is so trivial now. Even if I make some unique thing, others can just have an AI copy it. Nothing is special anymore. Feels like there's no point.
Indeed. I specifically decided to open-source my AI coding agent harness (coming later this month) because I felt like I was never going to be able to protect any the trade secrets due to how easy reverse engineering is now.
Easy doesn’t mean legal, and the fact that the law hasn’t caught up doesn’t mean that it won’t. And if both public sentiment and LLM feedback loops trend in the directions I fear they will, retribution may be swift and not easily reversed.
> AIs make short work of proprietary code as well. Reverse engineering has become trivial. Not releasing any code whatsoever is the only possible defense now. I've made my peace with that.
This is a false equivalence. Reverse engineering my binary is not the same thing as training on my code. When you RE a binary, what comes out the other side is not the code that I wrote, its some machine-generated code that can reproduce the behavior of the binary. The result can't even be described as 'similar' to the original, because the compilation process is pretty much 100% lossy.
Reverse engineering my binary doesn't concern me too much, as I'm sure there are legal avenues I could take to protect my business were it to become a real problem. And if it comes down it, there's zero competitive advantage someone would have in that scenario, as all they'd have is undifferentiated AI slop.
Taking my work, putting it into your commercial product, and selling it without my permission is what I have a problem with. That's exactly what AI companies are doing with very little push back, and why I won't release my hand-written human code anymore.
> I also don't feel any sense of accomplishment anymore. Software is so trivial now. Even if I make some unique thing, others can just have an AI copy it. Nothing is special anymore. Feels like there's no point.
Software is certainly not 'trivial' now. The only people who believe this are those that have gotten caught up in the AI marketing blitz, or have completely detached/warped perspective on software. I.e. non-engineers wowed by novelty, finance execs wowed by the idea of being able to fire a bunch of people, or oligarchs wowed by the idea of being able to monopolize an entire industry.
Yep. This is basically an ad for their "Artifacts" product. They are probably hoping to make more off of the spend of contestents than they pay in the prize to the winner.
> I use LLMs to fill code after I make all hard architectural decisions because they type faster than me, and I'd rather spend my time doing useful experiments than typing trivial functions, even though I could.
Are you being facetious? Because I've seen some bad takes from people trying to justify their AI coding practices, but this is the first one that actually made me laugh. It's clear that this public attack has you in a defensive mental state (which is perfectly understandable), so giving you the benefit of the doubt, I won't pile on and take everything you're posting too seriously.
However, I gotta point out how ridiculous this statement is, because it's the kind of thing that'd make me wonder if someone has any programming experience at all. Typing speed is not, never has been, and never will be a limiting factor in software development. "I didn't do because of even though I totally could" is a pathetic cope.
It kinda reminds me of a recent post from John Carmack where he said (paraphrasing) that he originally wanted to release Idtech to the public domain as a "gift to the world", but couldn't do it because of his pesky business partners, but he totally would've done it. Let's just ignore the part of the story where he became filthy rich from licensing his software, and focus on how good it will feel to call it a "gift to the world" when an AI company integrates your code into their commercial products without licensing it from you.
> doesn't make business sense to put a lot of resources into cleaning up ads that pay google nothing
If we lived in a sane world, Google would be held accountable for every scam they advertise. It doesn't matter if you think someone deserved to get scammed for using an ad blocker, because they never would have been scammed if Google didn't choose to put them in danger for the sake of profit.
"But they can't possibly review every ad before publishing" they say. If that's the case, then they should scale down the amount of ads they allow until it reaches a manageable scale (eg every single ad can be reviewed by a human employee). They might make less money, but it's an expectation we have of nearly all industries (eg commercial truck drivers have to follow extra restrictions in addition to regular speed limits)
> "But they can't possibly review every ad before publishing" they say. If that's the case
It's not, it never is; it's a lie on the level of "Poland attacked first". Say, if someone was offering you $40+ billion every 3 months to solve the issue, do you think you could? It's a ridiculous question, of course you could.
If we lived in a sane world, people would simply pay for what they use. Then we could avoid all this confusion, and google would have large (monetary) incentive to protect it's customers.
Google and Meta are entirely within their rights to make YouTube, Search, Facebook and Instagram into paid services for all users. Nobody is forcing them to advertise or to participate in criminal fraud with scam ads.
They are heading pretty steadfastly into multi billion dollar lawsuits the way they are going.
>If we lived in a sane world, people would simply pay for what they use
This is some proper, indoctrinated, corporate bootlicker mentality.
95% of the phones on the market will spy on you, send your data back to the mothership, and they will sell your data to 3rd parties, and they cost $1400-$2000. You pay for the phone which is not even yours after the purchase, and then you still get ads, spied on, and your data sold. Google has a very large monetary incentive already to protect their customers and they do jack shit about the malware/adware in the play store.
TVs are even worse. LG TVs were just found to spy on you and nearby devices while they are off. Do you think those TVs are free? No, they also cost a fortune.
The current state of the world is that even if you pay you will get ads, spying, and malware. Get your head out of your ass.
Have you heard of Amazon Sidewalk (https://sidewalk.amazon/)? All those Rings and Alexas in your neighborhood are able to serve as network proxies for random IoT devices.
LG very likely has your neighbor's WiFi password, so even if you don't connect it to your own network, they could theoretically just try and connect to any known network nearby. No 5g modem needed.
Idk if they do that, but it doesn't seem complicated to implement, and it doesn't seem to fall outside of the company's ethical boundaries.
I think enough customers freely connect their devices to the internet that they don't need to invest in the engineering required to include those kinds of things. I agree they won't have ethical qualms about it. It would also be pretty easy to spot; I feel confident saying they'd be too greedy to be sufficiently sneaky to keep it hidden.
For now, it remains easy and sufficient to not give them your wifi credentials.
reply