If you go to the doctor and they understand there there is a chance you are going to die but, when you come to them for advice on your pain, they look you straight in the eye and insist that you will be fine if you just eat some more fiber, they rob you and your family of a not only a chance to prepare and grieve but the motivation to fight the inevitable.

To your analogy, if you think we might be on the brink of a war that might massively effect your life and so you go to the wise guru who assures you you will be fine if you just duck and cover in the basement, they are, frankly, part of the problem, as they are making the war sound "not that bad", when if you understood the threat of thermonuclear war you might be protesting in the streets.

I am honestly at a loss here as to how you are not seeing this is a very different claim, and so am now also on the theory that this is some kind of performance art to reenact the frustration of someone claiming a question that is different is in fact some kind of duplicate content.

Again, this claim was made by a different user in a different branch of discussion off of this post, but it wasn't made by that user or even within this thread: Bratmon makes absolutely no claim about people crossing programming languages for marking duplicates. (I am done, though: feel free to now have the last word.)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50291174

As far as I know, A is still illegal, and nothing at all has changed that situation; if it did, it would be shocking, as it essentially undermines the entire legal framework of copyright, and it would be making national news and destroying -- not harming: entirely wiping out -- major software companies.

The only thing I think people have really litigated in the courts is B (as the obvious defendant is the juicy maker of the model rather than the users of the model, whereas they might be able to dodge culpability in C and even A), with the result that it is very likely legal... but, while that might be a bit frustrating, it was never shocking: a model is a highly transformative use case vs. the original code fed into the training.

However... B being legal doesn't actually imply that C is legal -- even if a ton of people fail to appreciate this distinction -- and C is where the war is starting to be fought. Instead of software, I think the most interesting avenue for this to become scary for people assuming this is legal will come from lawsuits involving the music industry (which tended to lead the pro-copyright cause in many of the skirmishes I was involved in while working on device freedom issues).

That said, people really focus too much on C, hoping for that grey area in both the law and in their analogies, when what developers are actually doing now is often A: the model has become an agent that uses tools, has access to the Internet, pulls code off my got repository, and is essentially just running a non-deterministic transform on that data sitting in its context... I have heard nothing that makes it sound as if A is "legal now".

2) In fact I have never used off-the-shelf coding assistants (Claude Code, etc.) and have only used my own harness; yet to me the issue is that the model itself often likes to think about problems in ways I find frustrating and unhelpful. The issue isn't at the level of how diffs are applied (that's commodity) or how context is managed (I can fix that) but in how problems are described, how abstractions are managed, and the language used to discuss them.

FWIW, many of us who do open source would also find that hypothetical world in which the idea of copyright is abolished rather enticing... but you pretending that is this current world whenever you want to steal our code whilst copyright still paints our interests in using and altering the code from companies that have always been in fear of our community and our licenses (Apple, Microsoft, etc.) as theft is not merely a bit shitty... it is kind of evil/cruel.

Terminal (and sshd) are special, in that they actually do end up with inherent transitive permission to their immediate intended child processes, as those children are nigh-unto universally (due to the entire idea of what terminals do) designed to be operated using text written to their input, which Terminal (and sshd) can man-in-the-middle.

But like, that doesn't generalize: it certainly (and obviously) is the case that I can have a process that is allowed to write files to disk that I would be happy to let you run even if I do not trust you to write to even those same files (as you will corrupt them), much less any file on my disk, as I merely need to trust that application to not give you the ability to do arbitrary writes.

The better idea here is that processes are their own form of encapsulation, and just because they can do something doesn't mean that they expose that functionality. You thereby must limit what tools can be used by a parent -- so almost no one gets a generic "exec" permission: you get a whitelist of tools and arguments you can utilize -- but the result doesn't look much at all like the permissions on subprocesses needing be a subset of the parent.

And like, it does this despite it speaking in extremely dense math, which both makes it sound correct and requires a lot more effort to prove when it is wrong... yet, it isn't actually correct more often, and so that time sink just isn't worth the benefit. I then think many people--including people who can speak math (as can I)--just stop bothering to check everything, as if you come across a human who speaks like this it probably does correlate with slow and careful thought that helps prevent errors.

Instead, Claude has the mistake rate of a somewhat accelerated beginner impossibly combined with the language of an expert professor; and we as humans just aren't good at that combination: it becomes very dangerous and makes it take longer to spot its egregious mistakes and trained-in biases. If you have to use Claude, I thereby claim you really need to have a team of not-Claudes to help insulate you from this, and Gemini (while being a bit senile) is a lot more collaborative and approaches problems in ways that makes it harder to get tricked.

(To translate this into more of an engineering analogy: Claude always feels to me like the engineer who put more effort into learning how to program in functional languages than into how to actually develop working code, and then confidently presents you answers in Haskell or Lisp that never quite work. To find their errors is then very costly. In contrast, Gemini feels more like a Java or Go developer who knows they are a cog... that's helpful! <- Which maybe just goes to show that AI has finally turned me into a manager, omg.)