Thanks for coming back to report this. I’m sure others here were, like me, hoping we could reach you with positive messages and give you the confidence in yourself you deserve.
Stay strong and find your way. Write more articles here if you like. We’re wishing you well.
@super_user_do@fedd.it, don’t fall for the (insanely voluminous) hype around LLM capabilities.
LLMs aren’t better than you even today. They will extrude mediocre code, far too verbosely, and inevitably lose track of what they are supposed to be doing. When asked to make a change, they will frequently change far too much. They will make a mess that no one understands, least of all the LLM.
You can do better than them, today and in the future, by being curious, reading to understand, intending what you write, and improving from mistakes. LLMs can do none of this, their design does not allow them to.
deleted by creator
What creative transformation has that company done? It seems to me rather that the LLM is an entirely mechanical process with no creativity.
No more creative than what my ISP does when it conveys data from one machine to another.
We don’t allow the ISP to claim copyright in the data that it mechanically transforms. I don’t see why the company running an LLM would have any stronger claim of copyright in the output.
Copyright grounds its justification in the creative expression of people. By creative transformation, new works can be created and some of those are deemed not restricted by copyright in the earlier work.
An LLM is not a person. An LLM has no mind and no creative expression. The training of an LLM and the inference from the LLM are, by definition, non-creative mechanical transformation from the input training data.
The copyright of the input work should, by this logic, survive whole in the output from that mechanical non-creative process. That is substantially different from the process by which humans learn and create.
I’m wondering about corporate level without having on-premise resources.
You’re necessarily, then, talking about paying for some other party to host resources at some other location(s). So the corporation needs to shop around for a deal for hosting web services.
Assuming the matter of hosting is taken care of, then, which service to run? In order to not be locked in to some proprietary provider, I would strongly recommend free-software community-maintained forge software. Something like Forgejo or Sourcehut.
An LLM, being a large database derived mechanically from its training data, seems to meet the definition of “derived work” as exists in most copyright legislation.
The output from an LLM, through the inference process, is also mechanically derived from that training data.
Lawmakers might try writing exceptions to please a stock market absolutely baying for hyperscaler growth. Despite that, it seems entirely viable that the copyright, held by humans on the training data fed to the LLM, continue to hold in the output derived from that input.
People saying it’s “obvious the output has no copyright”, or people who act as though it’s all free from any claim by the humans who wrote the works used as training data, are just showing their ignorance, it seems to me.
Plenty of web clients allow the user to turn off JavaScript. Which is a good safety and security measure.
If a web site breaks without JavaScript, that’s the fault of the web site designers and implementers.
I’d love to. Sadly, when I do leave JavaScript alone, too many web sites that should work fine just break.
Web applications need JavaScript.
Web sites do not; the static web technologies allow effectively any styling, and browsing any content your browser can handle, and HTML forms work fine. In any case, many people who need to access the web site can’t run modern JavaScript. So it should work without that.
There may be special dynamic enhancements that require JavaScript, but the site should do its core job flawlessly, without any JavaScript.
Not just you. For more than a quarter century, we’ve known that if a paragraph’s text lines sprawl across a wide screen, it’s more difficult for most people to read. (And the same is true if the lines are too short. There’s an optimal range.)
https://jamesmattison.co.uk/method/why-line-length-matters-for-legibility/
For this reason, it’s good for a website’s style rules to limit how wide (measured in characters) a column of text can get, regardless of how much screen there is to expand into.
Most of the music I enjoy listening to, has good singing and/or lyrics that I want to hear. But this is exactly what I don’t need while attempting to concentrate on another task!
When I need to focus on something, the music needs to be motivating, blocking out any ambient noise, but not distracting. I find trance and other techno to be best for this.
Answered in another reply.
Why would anyone make a hard programming language?
INTERCAL has entered the chat:
INTERCAL’s main advantage over other programming languages is its strict simplicity. It has few capabilities, and thus there are few restrictions to be kept in mind. […]
No. If an established dev leans on LLMs for coding and shovels it into the main branch, they have abdicated their responsibility and trashed their reputation. We get to point that out
without any obligation to do their work for them.
Either we get him more resources or we STFU about the retired dev using AI. We can’t have it both ways.
Of course we can do both. I don’t have those resources to grant
and I get to point out that Tridge, despite his well earned reputation from the huge contribution of creating rsync and bringing it to the point where it’s effectively complete as an essential piece of internet infrastructure, was massively arrogant in abdicating his responsibility by shovelling LLM slop into that same piece of infrastructure.
A child of five would understand this. Fetch me a child of five.
—Groucho Marx
Of course, that works only when everyone’s in the same room. I don’t have a good replacement for teams that connect remotely.
This is an unsurprising impression to form. But it’s false.
You are seeing a lot of people boosting the LLM’s capabilities, for many reasons.
Some of them are sincere, to a degree: they feel like they are doing more, because they’re churning out code so much faster! But they’re discounting or ignoring the downsides: They have far less comprehension of that code, they can’t possibly review it effectively, they don’t perceive the lost time trying to work the extruded output into something they can use; etc.
Some of them are insincere, because they’re grifting: hoping to hype others into committing more to this technology and to their apparent experience, for clout or money. Those people can die in a hole.
A lot of them are insincere, because they perceive it will hurt their short-term career to not spout enthusiastically about using LLMs for coding. Their bosses demand it be used, measure its use and rank employees based on token burn, and job adverts overwhelmingly seem to require use of LLMs. People pretend to love this stuff just to stay employed.
Don’t believe it just because people say it. Believe your own experience: you have seen how godawful is the code extruded from these slop machines. You have seen how voluminous and ignorant of context it all is, making it worse than useless to try integrating into an existing project. You have seen how the LLM can’t effectively maintain its own code medium-, let along long-term. It’s all and a colossal waste of effort and resources, a dead end.
Let people use the LLM for their own code if it makes them happy. But don’t accept it into your project if you don’t want it; and definitely don’t trust their self-reported productivity unless they bring the code, and you independently assess it. You’ll find very few claimed successes survive that simple scrutiny.