There’s a difference between training a model and using a model. Training involves copyrighted works but fair use is not just about use of copyrighted works, it’s about whether the use is transformative and substitutes the original market. I struggle to see how is not transformative under these criteria.

The use of the model (being able to output copies of GPL software) is a different question. This depends on the circumstances: if GPL code is exactly reproduced then it very well could be subject to the license of the original work.

I don’t understand the legal objections to the fair use of protected IP. Licenses are legal documents, not moral imperatives. GPL only exists because of copyright law, and you can’t write a license that supercedes copyright law if you don’t like the law.

The Claude Code example is completely different, hosting a repo with the leaked code is clearly not fair use.

The explanations are extremely short and I imagine a new Rust dev would not understand what is going on.

The Brown tutorial is far better, compare its section on mutables and ownership to this.

And yes, this entirely thing is AI generated. Why was this created?

This seems very controversial to me. Why does increasing wealth eventually cause negative outcomes? What do you mean by “make it hard”?

This article skips over justifying its argument. I don’t think, for example, that someone should have come along to Warren Buffett in the late 80s and said: “Your company is too successful, you can’t be the full owner of it anymore”

Individual, founder-led companies are a good thing, especially if the companies are very successful. You’re more likely to force these companies into being led by investors and private equity if you don’t let the founders lead them.

This doesn’t get you much in terms of security. The IRIS system itself is an OLTP so it’s going to need to constantly pass around the encryption key and use it constantly, and if an attacker gets disk access they also will have access to the keys.

So this is a big waste of everyone’s time and money.

“The LLMs produce non-deterministic output and generate code much faster than we can read it, so we can’t seriously expect to effectively review, understand, and approve every diff anymore. But that doesn’t necessarily mean we stop being rigorous, it could mean we should move rigor elsewhere.“

Direct reports, when delegated tasks by managers, product non-deterministic outputs much faster than team leads/managers can review, understand or approve every diff. Being a manager of software developers has always been a non-deterministic form of software engineering.

It’s deeply ironic that if you forget about LLMs and look only at the outcome—-we’ve found a way to legally circumvent copyright and the siloing of coding knowledge, making it so you can build on top of (almost) the whole of human coding knowledge without needing to pay a rent or ask for permission—-it sounds like the dream of open source software has been realized.

But this doesn’t feel like a win for the philosophy of OSS because a corporation broke down the gates. It turns out for a lot of people, OSS is an aesthetic and not an outcome, it’s a vibe against corporate use or control of software, not for democratized access to knowledge.

It’s okay to make money and change up your career! But this communication is bizarre.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44971660

Points: 1

# Comments: 0