Hilarious
“Give us all your code for free who cares about copyright anyway”
“NOOOO YOU CANT USE OUR PRODUCT TO GET FRE CODE 😡😡😡”
The best part of paying for a coding assistant is discovering halfway through your project that it has developed opinions about what your project is allowed to be. Imagine your IDE refusing to compile because it thinks your game feels a little too much like Tetris. At least a compiler doesn’t pretend it’s doing you a favor.
I think that’s what they wanted from the very beginning, to accelerate projects that are socially convenient for them, but not those that are not.
There’s that issue with universal machines that some people don’t like that others are allowed to make universal decisions.
My coworker recently had an experience where he was trying to fix a security hole and his AI wouldn’t do it because it claimed that it was unsafe.
That’s what happens when you let others do your computation for you.
Run the tool on your own hardware.
For me I was working on testing our IoT device in heavy network load situations. It said it would not help because it was too close to crafting a DDoS attack. Thankfully this was rather trivial to do.
Only the AI companies are allowed to plagiarize.
What exactly are you suggesting here? That using an LLM to reverse-engineer a video game, modify its code, and create an entirely new experience constitutes plagiarism?
Do you understand what plagiarism actually means? It means passing off someone else’s work as your own. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone uses AI to reverse-engineer software, modify an existing game, or develop an entirely new way to experience it.
There may be legitimate arguments to be made about copyright infringement and intellectual property rights, but those are entirely different discussions.
And what does the statement about AI companies being the only ones allowed to plagiarize even mean? Are you suggesting that modifying an existing video game is somehow equivalent to an AI company training a model on copyrighted material?
You’re conflating completely different concepts, and the result is an accusation that doesn’t even make sense in the context of what’s being discussed.
What I’ve presented here is the absurd concept that AI companies exist after having stolen a wealth of human intellectual property and haven’t paid for or attributed any value to the original creators. And now that they have this, they are gatekeeping how it gets used.
But I said it in a punchy one-liner with a sarcastic undertone, and I’m afraid that’s where I lost you.
Your reverse engineering argument might have a point but plagiarism regarding AI should be more obvious. Indeed AI is trained on the collective publicly available knowledge humans have deposited on the internet and then sold back to the same people for a fee without any acknowledgement let alone sharing of profits in someway. It is similar to the kind of unethical behaviour where some academic publishers are employing aggressive marketing strategies to sell public science back to public at high costs. Ofcourse there is still the argument that these AI companies are only charging for operational costs, which may be true for some. But I am willing to bet money that if LLMs becomes an integral part of the modern world then they will turn down this tap to a bare trickle at exorbitant prices. Sam Altman himself confessed as much (he said something along the lines of envisioning a future where AI becomes an on demand information and skill tap, you fill in the rest). Operating something at a loss is a known capitalistic strategy to get people used to your product and drive smaller competition out of market so in a decade or so you become the monopolistic owner of an essential service.
Chatgpt won’t give me bass sheet music to Ella Fitzgerald’s version of How High the Moon, due to concerns of edit: copyright issues (not plagiarism.).
I wouldn’t put it past anthropic to deny the request.
Not because of plagiarism. It’s not concerned about plagiarism. It’s concerned about copyright infringement. It is not creating the bass sheet for you and then claiming it as their own novel intellectual property that they just made up on their own.
Why do people not know what plagiarism means.
Why do people not know what plagiarism means.
you’re right I went back into my conversations and it was indeed because of copyright issues not plagiarism
Absolutely! Private corporations are going to milk these models for everything they can fortunately, there’s a lot of really good open source out there.
Well tell me where AI companies are giving credit
Once again, this comment doesn’t make any sense. The word plagiarize is being misused here AI companies and their product the llm aren’t committing plagiarism. So I’m not sure who you want them to credit. They have already disclosed where they’re getting their training data from do you want them to name every individually? And even if they did, what conceivable purpose would that serve? None of them are getting any royalties from it. Because using training data isn’t necessarily copyright infringement and is in fact still an ongoing legal matter in the courts. And even if they did, the amount of information that is used as training data is so massive that a credit section wouldn’t use all usability it can tens of thousands of individual names. You ever sit there and read the credits at the end of the movie?
“The internet” is not actually a valid source.
Yes, I indeed want people to be named individually. The internet is not one Organisation that people generate IP for.
Of course crediting everybody would be ridiculous, but stealing the entire internet is not?
Let’s assume, for a moment, that LLMs are trained on publicly available data. In other words, they’re not stealing or pirating that data, just to simplify the argument. (Although, to be fair, some LLM developers have done exactly that and are facing legal consequences.)
Publicly available data is just that: publicly available. Anyone can access it, including individuals, businesses, and AI developers. They’re not stealing something that is freely accessible to literally everyone.
And that’s the dilemma: either that information is freely available to everyone, or it isn’t. You can’t argue that it’s free for you and me to access but somehow off-limits to OpenAI or Grok simply because they’re using it for a different purpose. That’s not how public access works.
So, they’re not stealing anything under the assumption we’re making here. To answer your original question, no, I don’t have an issue with them stealing the internet.
Open source developer here, AI is regularly being used to erase the original developers and artists.
You know what I liked in memes with “stolen” art? There was something to look up to, there was something to become part of our collective culture. Call me a hippie or “irrational” but this is why AI is like the second coming of asbestos, even if it becomes better over time.
Here’s my game engine, feel free to fork the shit out of it. Feel free to rewrite it in Rust to “make it better”. Feel free to borrow parts of it. My only problem if you do it with AI, so you neither learn during the process of doing it, and you manage to erase me in the process.
The whole reverse engineering craze is being used, so most game devs will be so disillusioned they will leave the industry, and AI vendors can sell expensive subscriptions instead. The AI bros are really angry, that their shiny new technology didn’t immediately disrupt the existing creative industry enough.
AI exists to aid capital against you; not aid you against capital.
AI exists to devalue human labour.
I can only talk about software developers, but there it’s fucking pants on head to fire developers. It only makes sense if you don’t have any competitors.
More than 50% of software projects fail either because they run over time or over budgetl, but for obvious reason both. So you get this tool that increase your output, let’s say 10x. Does that mean that you can fire 9/10 developers? What does your competitors do? If they retain their developers they can smoke your company in months.
This assumes 10x the features at 2/3 the quality is a winning bet
The quality doesn’t matter. Look at a product like netsuite which dominates corporate accounting. It’s a total piece of shit. And overpriced one at that. But it has oracle in the name, so an executive can choose it with little thought and not take any blame because it was a “reasonable” choice that “everyone” uses. Much of corporate life is monkey see monkey do. Rarely does innovation happen because trying something different is a huge risk to some middle manager or execute that is just trying to make it to the next promotion or bonus.
Maybe your are right, software that checks all the boxes wins b2b deals even if it is a peice of shit
The reason a lot of these enterprises are looking to offload developers is because they see AI as accelerating their workforce. These businesses are doing the same thing as they were before, but with AI, which means they don’t have enough workload to justify having that many people on anymore (as long as they are using AI workloads). If one developer with AI can do the work of 3 to 10 developers without AI the logic is that they can have their developer headcount and still be ahead.
Not that I agree with what they’re doing, but this is the logic behind it.
I suspect we’ll see these features opened up for US-allied actors against their foreign competitors.
You can guarantee US auto companies are going to be free to reverse engineer software and manufacturing techniques of Chinese companies, for instance.
But you’re not going to be allowed to use Grok or Meta to hack your Tesla or BMW, pull out the OS, clone it as freeware, and offer a substitute unconstrained by subscription fees and gated upgrades.
The legitimate developers I know aren’t hit by Claude restrictions, because they don’t fucking use it.
Linus Torvalds uses it. I’d consider him a legitimate developer.
“was legitimate”
Ftfy
I once asked Claude to check the app it vibecoded for security flaws and it didn’t want to do it.
It literally told me to look up some basic security principles and do it myself.
I hook mine up to some classical static analysys tools like sonar or codacy. Just ask it to remove the security findings and haven’t had an issue. Then again, been on vacation while all this shit has happened, so don’t know what to expect when I return.
Was bound to happen eventually. They’re going to try to make open models illegal now.
My opinions are that its fine to make llm projects that threaten corporations who rely on saas. Doesn’t mean im going to use them or that they’re any good, but I want to see these companies who are firing all their employees and throwing all their money at ai to get scourned. Will build more distrust between the corpos too.
And just to be clear its okay when they steal literally the entire world’s knowledge base. But as soon as adobe and Microsoft see a 2% drop in profit all the sudden everyone’s a terrorist, or its the worst thing to happen ever. I hate ai but I’ll root for my enemy when he’s destroying one of my original enemies, can’t wait for these companies to burn. I’d go back to the stone ages if I knew elon, Sam Altmann, etc where all dead.
I’d go back to the stone ages if I knew elon, Sam Altmann, etc where all dead.
Going back to 80’s tech where most things were still analog should do it. Pen and paper, fax machines, analog tape and vynil records
I think we can realistically live in a happy medium with modern goodies. I do like apsects of analog and prefer it in many applications over digital. And its hard to say that in general because the first place my mind goes to is sensors for pi/esps, and your first thought is older analog tech. Analog sensors just seem more straight forward and it feels better to know you can just do shit without a computer in the way sometimes.
Like we sent people to the moon on kilobites of data, yet Microsoft windows needs 16 gigs of ram as a min req so copiolt can take screen shots every 30 seconds. Analog components just work on their own, require less power, and can just become its own system without a whole digital computer. Maybe instead of wifi bases lights and a whole home assistant server you just get a old fassion photoresistor and some clap sensors.
Its really as simple as just buying things that don’t need access to the internet or some dumb app just because the product costs less. I think in theory we could exist in a world where there’s a better happy medium where every devices doesn’t have to also be a android smart phone so that it can also spy on you and sell your data to ai and government.
But also at the same time I am stubborn enough where I will drag us down into the dark ages if it meant if the offer magically was presented to me. If you put two buttons infront of me I would press the dark ages button so fast.
Creating a shittiness free tech ecosystem is pretty straightforward, the question is where do you get the money to do so without the expectation of ever increasing profit.
I’d just start with fitting every tech mba with one of those collars that explode
Filofax, yes or no?
Self host a QWEN model on a budget server build.
American AI is so centralized that utilizing AI, as an end user without having some loser looking over your shoulder or demanding a monthly fee, is difficult.
Nvh of that. I just looked it up. Can it be hosted on a lower spec machine? I downloaded GPT4All and couldn’t use it because my specs weren’t good enough.
The restrictions are so they can gradually institute tiered access fees. This is how the industry becomes profitable.
Tier based models = economic segregation. The poor can fuck off and the rich can pay for enterprise.
Only works if they get their competitors “regulated” so other models can’t offer unrestricted features for a lower price.
Only works if local models cannot do it.
It’s out of the box.
They can try, but, it’s too late.
Don’t hesitate, bring them to thier knees.
Is reversing with Deepseek just as good?
If not now, probably at some point it will.
No idea.
They’re training their models on my art. It’s only fair I get to use their technology in return.
ai is gonna kill proprietary software! adobe and microsoft are done for now that we can reverse engineer their products with ai and make them open source!!!
you naive fools… the copyright of corporations is sacrosanct, remember? not like the copyleft of independent artists or free software. that can be violated at will!
Copyright is pretty much dead. Money is worthless.
Now is the time.
There are openweight models that are really capable at this point.
So it might be that the American corporations try the most that this will not happen, but I think we are close to a point where this doesn’t matter anymore.
AI cloning is just a thing that is a reality now…
As someone who puts their hobbiest projects out under AGPL, having my licenses teeth kicked in even more has NOT been helpful…
Gee. I wonder why anyone would want the inefficiency of local inference?
Great time to know how to do things yourself.
This almost feels like some sort of oxymoron.
Big tech is supposed to reverse engineer individual devs and artists not the other way around, stahp!!
