I've said it before and I say it again: nomatter where you stand on generative AI's usefulness, you are crazy for putting your last private space – your thoughts – in the hands of someone other than you. Going further down this line will not end well.

… and those often end up in legally dubious situations.

I'm well aware of situations of potentially upending changes where the rich and powerful stand to gain, and the little guy's worries are ignored.

This, however, is clearly a potentially upending change where also lots of the rich and powerful – including those who control the very technology driving the change – have everything to lose. I'm surprised, to say it mildly, that nothing seems to be happening. Does Dario really believe that a strict ToS and stern words will keep his IP protected without appealing to the legal system? (I guess that is par for the course for the people who "solve" world problems with bunkers and armed guards…)

In the sense that most people doing intellectual work do that work for someone else (say, a company) that you consider the primary beneficiary of IP law? Sure, fine – but this applies to almost any other type of work and the legal constructs that are in use there too, so it's not really a very useful distinction to make, even if technically correct.

Or do you mean something else?

In a utopian world of abundance where we could all be the independently wealthy nobles of the 18th and 19th century who did intellectual work for fun: great. In the world of today where people need to be compensated for their work: what happens?

I'm baffled that other IP holders (say those who own valuable pieces of proprietary software, or music, or movies, or even the LLMs themselves) don't think leopards will come eat their faces next. This erosion of IP has to stop, or anyone who does any intellectual work will be absolutely screwed. If that only meant FOSS people, I'd be worried that we'd just be thrown out with the bathwater – but surely this applies across the board!?

Serious such rewrites don't start with the code of the closed game!

> I don't know how this squares with law, but Oracle v Google gave a very valuable judgment to the public that an API is not copywritable. If we take the LLM out of it, that's all we are talking about in the pure case.

Not at all. The LLM used to write grit has seen the git code. That is what we're talking about here.

> Of course, we can't take the LLM out, but it is the starting point.

The LLM isn't the important thing. The important thing is that the git source code was used to make grit.

That being said – and with no reduction in my apology – I'm very glad to see that the comment my anger was directed at (a wild political statement without anything backing it up or anything contributing to further discussion) was also reprimanded. This kind of "contribution" to the discourse is a major threat to free societies, and should be called out (calling the author a moron is, of course, not the best way of doing that).

> few/shallow dependencies

is just flat-out wrong. There's (sadly) a big culture of sprawling, deep dependencies in the Rust community. There are of course many counterexamples too, but it's definitely not correct that Rust signals the virtue you refer to.

(Incidentally, the misguided idea among some that as long as a dependency isn't through FFI, it doesn't count as a dependency, is one of the things I dislike the most about Rust culture. That, and pervasive bundling.)

1) I'm incredibly allergic to hype. To me, LLMs are very technologically impressive. I don't doubt that they're useful for many things – adversarial code review (including finding exploits), refactoring, search and math exploration are some shoo-ins in my view. However, these and other applications speak for themselves. They are impressive. They don't need people running around telling everyone how they should use more LLMs. How "the old ways" are obsolete, etc. Awesomeness does not need a fanclub.

2) Usefulness in some areas doesn't necessarily extrapolate as well as the fanclub seems to think.

3) The fanclub happens to be aligned with some pretty unsavory people, and some powers that have very little regard for our shared planet. This is, of course, not the fault of the fanclub, but many in the fanclub certainly could do a better job distancing themselves from certain people and acknowledging certain regulatory necessities.

4) I think this revolution has revealed a dichotomy in the set of people who enjoy programming: those for whom the end goal reigns supreme, and those for whom the journey is the point. You yourself seem to be in the former group. As a member of the latter, I have to say we feel a bit invisible. We're also often accused of wanting to halt progress so that we can keep doing what we want. I think that's an unfair characterization (I won't go into details of why here).

5) A lot of people in a geeky community like this are naturally skeptical of relying on things that we ourselves can't control. It's part of why the FOSS movement succeeded. This is all very much on a collision course with at least SOTA LLMs.

6) A lot of us do intellectual work. We therefore rely on a functioning system of intellectual property. It seems that a large fraction of the pro-AI crowd subscribe to the idea that passing IP through an LLM can strip it of its original ownership. For points 1-5, I believe we should have a nuanced discussion and try to understand each other. On point 6, though, I think these people have lost their minds. I completely fail to understand how they themselves don't think they'll soon encounter face-eating leopards if their worldview holds water. There seems to be very little acknowledgement of this, and it makes me angry.

You do need to be good at math to do e.g. physics (or math itself!), nomatter the tools at your disposal.

I don't see how this is any different from every line trailing with a comment of the form "FIXME: This line might be wrong".

And I say this as something of a Rust fanboy. I love the way unsafe blocks work, and the "locality of danger" they give you. But that all goes out the window if there's a gazillion haphazardly written such blocks.