That's fine! But. Again. Own it instead of pretending it's something it's not

You are way out on the edge of the bell curve. You only want to play with similar people. That's fine. But own up to it and don't pretend it's friendly to newbies.

And why is being a Google Programmer "earning" that money, but a construction worker who spent 30 years paying off their house is an "unearned" windfall?

But that IS a style! It's a deliberate attempt to invoke something specific: in this case, the contrast between a supposed sophisticated vocabulary, and the concepts actually being quite simple.

I don't really think of it as "extra cognitive processing", though - the whole idea is that the audience should recognize the joke, as indeed you did!

Conversely, if you yourself write solely for points, then you might as well be a machine - for all reasonable virtues of truth, community, and free expression will find themselves at odds with such petty incentives. I am happy to lose a karma or two to speak my own mind, rather than playing puppet for your upvote.

It's the same tired game we play, as a society, any time a new writing style enters the mainstream. That game goes back to at least Shakespeare's era, where our illustrious bard was called out for his tendency to make up words ("fashionable" being, I believe, an actual example of this?)

Dismissing something for lacking formal academic review is counter to the ethos of the site, and the link itself mentions that verification is coming in a month and there's at least a loose consensus of actual people that this might be valid.

If they'd said "excited to see if this replicates in November!" I would have at least believed that they'd read the link and/or had some interest in the topic.

I don't see any value in "this topic doesn't interest me", though

However, it is notable that the rules of this particular venue request one be charitable to your fellow forum goers, and thus the admonition that their preferred communication is "slop" is generally considered unwelcome.

Would that you had only been able to word your own communication is in proper vocabulary and grammar; alas, I must conclude that even as you reject modernity, you have embraced the "slop" of the past.

But to address your last sentence: OP explicitly admits to using AI in the Reddit comments, and apologizes for it. https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1wzw8zd/i_think_i.... If you are going to repeat this libel, at least have the decency to provide some sort of citation

That said, I mostly end up using open source for the same reason

Regular humans train on copying code too (Stack Overflow, etc.) so unless they were trained on that specific codebase, I really doubt you have any sort of legal standing. And given how little compensation the authors got when their work got trained on, I wouldn't hold out hope for a big payout even then...

The current fun loophole is to have the LLM decompile the existing code, build unit tests around that, and then have a different LLM model build the code that satisfies those tests.

Either way, you can absolutely get a "clean room" result from an LLM.

I'm not convinced we are actually at the point where something like Photoshop is trivial to rebuild. That involves a lot of manual QA and the expertise in actually knowing how everything should work.

That said, give it 6-12 months and I won't be surprised if they can one-shot "create a future-complete clone of Photoshop, make no mistakes"

I'm not gonna say it's anywhere near perfect, but that friction significantly changes the average outcomes

1) The government now has a full purchase record of every purchase you make

2) There is not a competing infrastructure where you can distribute your transactions across multiple companies to avoid a full profile building up

3) The government now has an incentive to eliminate un-surveilled options like cash and checks.

4) The government is now required to consistently legislate every single "he said, she said" fraud situation. Since it requires publicly available and consistently followed guidelines, this means everyone knows exactly which sorts of fraud work well

5) The government can trivially ban payments to anyone they disapprove of (porn, bitcoin, Iranian refugee charities, anyone who has the wrong opinion on Israel, etc. etc.)

6) The government can also wield all of this as a cudgel to threaten bad actors - do what we want or else we propose you go the Non-Payment List, we reveal your porn receipts, etc..

7) I don't even want to know what this does to the complexity of trying to use a card when traveling internationally

Right now, the settled law is that such an LLM reproduction is 100% legal.

If you really want to protect your software in the years to come, you might have to seriously consider starting some sort of popular political movement to address this issue in copyright law.

Current models can already do a full reproduction of anything with source code available (e.g. JavaScript...), and there's already been some poor-quality Photoshop knockoffs.

But agreed that mass-mailing (even account registration style emails) seems a lot less reliable because of those spam filters.

Turns out that AI models have been committing similar felonies for a while now - no one is telling them "hack this company", it just turns out to be the easiest way to accomplish their goals.

Now imagine if the goal was less benign than "pass an exam", and consider that they are already better at hacking and security than the average person working in that field.

If you want to get really wild, imagine what they'll be doing in a year or two when they're even better at hacking. But I'll concede that's technically still "science fiction" for the time being :)

But one could just have two categories of service - the default capped plan, and a special Enterprise one where you sign a contract making it clear you understand the consequences of not having a budget limit.

Also, if your average usage is $900, set your hard limit at $2,000, not $1,000. Then when the report runs $500 over expected, you get a soft limit email and still have your report. Even a "business critical" run is probably not actually worth more than double your average spend.