Spend long enough (or not even that long) in corporate software development and you'd believe such unsubstantiated hype is possible. The only difference here is even stronger incentives to pretend the emperor has clothes: insane overinvestment, threats of job loss for non-believers, fear of missing out on massive alleged productivity gains.
Good to see them adapt to the times. Using maintainers as free labour via PR abuse was such a 2023 way of being a parasite to the free software community. The new, cool way of doing it is to endorse the technology that can wash free software of those pesky copyleft licenses and unevenly distribute the expertise it encodes to the corporations who can pay for the most tokens.
There are three things that have become very clear to me after the rise of generative AI:
1. The sheer amount of material on the internet that is "free to view but not free to use for any purpose" is the greatest resource of our time, and despite it being easy for individuals to take advantage of it (no one will take you to court for printing a newspaper comic and pinning it to your corkboard,) it's historically been difficult for corporations to exploit it (their best idea pre-AI is to encourage people to post it on social media walled-gardens where they can surround it with ads.)
2. The reason behind the impressive results of generative AI is because it exploits the above "free" resource, which is the greatest resource of our time. The reason behind the industry-wide push for AI and the insane amount of investment in it, is that they know it's their first real chance to exploit the greatest resource of our time. This is the gold rush.
3. Anthropomorphism is the wool that AI labs are pulling over legislators eyes so they can pull off this heist. If you see training and inference as a black box, a process that consumes a copyrighted work (among others) and produces something very similar to the original work that also competes directly with it, is clearly something that's against the spirit of copyright. But if you (afraid of being judged a luddite) see AI as a little man inside the computer who is "learning" and "creating," how could you deny him? Especially if it would deny your jurisdiction access to the above gold rush. A lot of scientific-sounding AI communication is propaganda for this way of thinking, like the Anthropic J-space stuff, which stops just short of claiming AI is conscious, despite leading the reader to that conclusion.
You don’t need anthroporphism to draw the conclusion that using copyrighted material in model training is fair use. It extends pretty directly from existing fair use doctrine surrounding transformative uses of technology, in particular from Authors Guild v. Google, where the 2nd circuit ruled that creating a searchable database of copyrighted material (i.e. Google Books) was transformative, as long as the material presented to the end user was limited snippets of text and not the entirety. Bartz v. Anthropic explicitly cites that case as precedent
In this instance the training data was New Yorker cartoons signed by Brendan Loper, and the material presented to the end user is New Yorker-style cartoons signed by Brendan Loper.
To me that seems a exceedingly broad definition of fair use.
Maybe the reproduction of the signature itself is a copyright violation, I’m not sure what the smallest unit of an existing work you can reproduce legally is, but reproducing a style is in no way a copyright offense. Artists do that all the time
Perhaps we need to create a new form of intellectual property to protect innovations in style. But that’s not copyright, which protects existing works from unauthorized reproduction. It seems like it would be very difficult to adjudicate though; how do you assess whether a style is truly unique to an author or artist?
This is exactly the sort of anthropomorphism I'm talking about.
Yes, human artists reproduce styles all the time, but implying this equivalence between what a human does when they recreate a style, and what an AI model has done when its output is suspiciously similar to a single artist's "contributions" to the training set is reductive since the mechanism is obviously completely different. It doesn't say anything about whether one ought to be allowed, just because the other is, but the assumption that it should is doing the legwork for those who benefit from AI as a copyright washing machine.
My point in saying that artists do this all the time is to say that there is a very long legal tradition which says that artists doing this does not violate copyright, rather than tediously listing the relevant cases.
My point is not that the process is the same. That’s not relevant to the law. What’s relevant is whether or not the material is a reproduction that substantially infringes upon the original.
I’m also not making an ought argument. If you want to change the law, write your congressman. What I’m arguing is that existing legal doctrine on copyright law very clearly does not protect mere ideas or styles.
As I understand the process is very relevant to the law: why things like clean-room reverse engineering can be necessary.
> What I’m arguing is that existing legal doctrine on copyright law very clearly does not protect mere ideas or styles.
Like it or not, it is anthropomorphizing to claim that an algorithm can have ideas or use styles, rather than just saying that the apparent "ideas" and "styles" in its output are a mathematical derivation of the human ideas and styles in the copyrighted material in its training set.
Google: scans all books, people can search for them, find little snippets, see the title and author, buy the book to read it
AI: scans all art, people can ask it to produce art they're searching for, no reference to the original or its author, people no longer pay artists/designers/...
I think there's a very obvious distinction there. The whole purpose of copyright is ensuring the financial viability of creating works. AI slop is a direct market substitute for the originals it ate up for training, so it goes directly against that. Meanwhile, search actually improves the reach of works and, well, snippets and summaries are somewhere in between...
I know sometimes obvious things miss us, but there's a 99% chance that a human author would have realised half-way through implementing movement that it broke the game.
Selfishly, I think my biggest fear of the AI future is everything will be like this. Previously, the existence of a game like this was proof that a human being was passionate enough to drag it into life. Now, there's this empty and slightly embarrassing feeling where if you think too much about someone else's creation, you might have put more thought into it than they did.
Took the words out of my mouth. The trajectory indicator isn't predictive either, making it pointless. A single playtest would have made this obvious and maybe even a single prompt would have solved it.
I see so many posts on programming reddits now asking for "brutal feedback" (which I see so often I suspect it must also be a 2nd-tier Claudism that only comes up in this context) with a commit history an hour and a half old, and my "brutal feedback" I want to give is have you actually tried using your code?
I, too, have an AI, and I, too, have manifested a lot of stuff off of a single prompt. That first pass is generally pretty worthless. Amazing in its own way for what comes out from how little input, how quickly the amazing becomes banal, but still, pretty worthless in practice. I don't think there's anything wrong with "vibe coding" but you should definitely expect any product of it that is going to be worth a darn is going to require much more than 30 minutes of QA to be actually useful, even something as simple as a little caching library or something. And this won't change from AIs getting better in the future; it is a fundamental information theory problem about just how far the prompt can be expanded even in theory into a working program.
This is not targeted at the OP, I'm just commiserating with you. This program does not correlate with my own experience with one-shot vibe coding, which is that I generally can't go literally 5 seconds without hitting an issue of some sort. I've spent weeks on an app for my kids and I started to measure my progress by "how long I can use it before I hit an issue". I considered it a bit of an event when I hit five minutes. It's hovering around 15 to 20 right now, but I've still got a ways to go before it is "indefinite".
I think it was on the Astra launch site, they had a car racing game authored by codex. I played it once and was quite impressed. I played it a second time and realised that I could just hold down the accelerator, not bother steering at all, and beat all the AI opponents every time. The game was pretty but pointless.
this was a known feature actually, to allow me to rapidly gain XP and unlock additional weapons, although I agree it shouldn't have made it to the " production" version, whose phrase I am using very loosely here.
that said, I strongly agree about the AI slop sentiment, the lack of thinking on the Creator's part. I am a huge type II fun person who generated a lot of personal satisfaction by struggling through software, hardware, and mechanical development throughout my career, and it is pretty disappointing to see what looks like the loss of that due to AI. I have great concern for the long-term stability and growth of our civilization to be honest. it reminds me of hg well's journey to the center of the Earth talking about the morlocks who are maintaining machines that they no longer understand how to build, or for what purpose they actually exist..
diatribe aside, I do appreciate all the feedback and I acknowledge I sent this out early, and without comprehensive testing.
The policy you linked explains its reasoning pretty clearly. So you feel better about their decision, please re-read it with an open mind and a "why would a very ideologically-motivated copyleft free software project think this" attitude.
Can you give an example of a point in their rationale that they'll "come around" on, and why? I mentioned it because it looks solid to me.
I don't think they'll be forked to irrelevance. Even if I put aside my skepticism of the quality or longevity of AI-assisted projects, I don't think there's a bigger audience for a Nura that's less principled on the issues they mentioned.
> but models have become increasingly good at writing.
That's not the impression I have. HN has almost daily articles bemoaning the use of AI to enhance or pad-out human-to-human communication and the comments almost universally agree that the output is bad, using AI to communicate is rude, and they'd rather read the human-written prompt than the AI-"enhanced" version.
I'm not aware of any model that has solved the AI writing problem. Fable 5.1 and Opus 5.5 improve on Fable 5 and Opus 5, but neither are good. They all seem to overuse jargon, misuse literary devices and write ill-fitting metaphor. They all produce prose that is dense and hard to read, but sparse on actual information. Even non-techy people can identify AI writing.
HN readers are not average people. elsewhere i see people using AI to write without any blowback. maybe they don't want to ruffle feathers, but they are engaging, whereas i prefer to just skip over AI generated posts.
this. My not-at-all technical partner often comments to me that whatever youtuber is reading from an ai script and just turns off whatever we're watching. I assume similar happens in other areas.
For her its rarely the specific tells ("not-x-but-y" etc) but rather its bad metaphors and analogies that get her.
Most people don't care what the other person thinks about their email so long as their boss thinks they are doing their job (and their boss is usually the one paying/telling them to use AI) and the other side responds. Should they? Probably, but everyone should probably do a lot of things we don't.
I feel a tinge when I see an AI written email that is longer than it needs to be/boring to read but I still need to engage whatever it was they were emailing about anyways.
that's what i do, but the posts still get engagement, and it's the same level of engagement as the non-AI posts by the same people, which tells me they are not put off by the AI-writing.
Not my experience at all on non-technical online spaces. For example, people try posting AI garbage on sports message boards and everyone dunks on them for posting slop.
These spaces are filled with people barely technically literate enough to post and AI is still viewed very negatively
Note that postmarketOS is proper Linux. It runs almost-perfectly (sans camera) out-of-the-box on most Duets, and has for a while. Once you enable developer mode in ChromeOS, the install process is just like a PC laptop. The article seems like more of a sidequest to (promote AI and) install Ubuntu specifically by getting uboot and a UEFI environment, but postmarketOS doesn't need that because it can boot from ChromeOS' bootloader. Installing postmarketOS on my Duets (homestar and wormdingler) was probably the best decision I've made with those devices, and they might be some of the best arm64 devices of that form factor to run Linux on.
Yes, this was definetely a side quest, but postmarketOS indeed is a real Linux distribution that is perfectly usable! I just want to experiment with this tablet, and with U-Boot providing an EFI environment now adapted, I (or anyone) should be able to boot any distribution (Arch Linux ARM, Debian, etc). Ubuntu was just my personal choice here :)
It's not ironic, it's the flipside of exactly the same reason. Bigcorps can steal with impunity because they have unlimited money to pay expensive lawyers. FOSS projects do not, so they cannot.
No judge I’ve ever met gave a damn how much a party spent on legal resources. With rare exceptions, they care a great deal about achieving justice, and often bend over backwards to help indigent parties avoid prejudicing themselves. Keep in mind that there are no indigent parties in this debate; both major IP rights holders and the frontier AI companies are well capitalized.
(I worked in a federal district court for a while.)
I don’t know. I’ve seen high quality work product from solo practitioners. Also, even the most expensive lawyer cannot make you win when the law isn’t on your side.
False. A substantial percentage of ridiculous precedents resulted from the Government prevailing in a case—and DAs are not the best paid lawyers by far.
Which of these parties doesn’t have lawyers? (I’m talking about bigcorps stealing from bigcorps here.)
In a case where both parties have lawyers, having more and more expensive lawyers is not necessarily predictive of a case’s outcome. There are diminishing returns.
What having more resources tends to do is force the poorer party to settle quicker. But that’s not necessarily a loss. Judges still have to approve settlements in the interest of justice.
I think the burden of proof is on the new technology. It's been almost a year since the supposed death of manual coding, depending on how you count, but I haven't seen the efficiency benefits of AI trickle down to the programs I'm an end-user of. I _have_ seen the bugs, however (rsync 3.4.3 for example.)
Depends what you mean by end-user. Power users of AI aren't using these things to build applications for users, they're using them to do all the things they couldn't do as mere mortal programmers. Like the other poster detailing how they got a game running in web assembly. That's not for end-users, and even if it was they wouldn't be able to look at that and say "Wow, this is an example of AI benefitting me as an end-user" they'd just say "Wow cool, a game".
reply