iloveoof

From the reaction to this post here and on Reddit, I know this is not the majority opinion in the open source community. Still, I'm confused by the thinking behind policies like this, where it's not a practical problem of AI code creating too much low-quality work to review, but the outright opposition to LLM assisted coding in general.

My understanding has always been that the goal of open source software is to make software more free and to be able to make higher-quality, more ambitious software. With LLMs making it easier than ever to modify, study and read software, and independent developers able to work on more ambitious projects, I would expect open source advocates to view LLMs as strongly congruent with the free software movement. Instead, this post stresses the incongruency of open source software with AI-assisted coding on grounds of human-centeredness and the "cheapness" of tokens. What does human-centeredness have to do with open source software? Isn't the cheapness of tokens directly aligned with the goals of open source software of making it easier and cheaper to create software? I just don't get it.

This article doesn’t make sense. There’s tons of lobbying in the EU. For example in the Netherlands the culture is very focused on consensus with the public including engaging with industry.

Anyone who is an expert in their field knows that the government is completely clueless and ineffective when it comes to regulating what you do. That’s normal and fine, nobody can be an expert in every situation of every field, including regulators

When experts give feedback to the government, that’s lobbying.

Math 2 looks a whole lot like software development.

I agree that AI companies shouldn’t be allowed to bar distillation under grounds of fairness and societal benefit.

But I don’t see how copyright has anything to do with anything. Copyright is a legal concept, not an ethical concept. Training an LLM on copyrighted material is legal. Ethically, whether a work that the LLM trained on is copyrighted or not has no relevance

Agents are the greatest rubber ducks ever created.

Another perspective is that this isn’t a new problem. Every dev manager or team lead with very strong direct reports has this problem. They don’t lose the ability to reason, they strengthen their ability to reason more quickly, and know when to trust the expert and when to poke holes.

I’m not an artist I’m a software developer, so the tools I use don’t matter, the outcomes do. If I am completing my tickets and the code is high quality and well designed then I am doing my job.

Yes, but it’s usually only hours to validate. I understand the codebase so I have the intuition to know almost immediately if the theory makes sense. Validating and reproducing the root cause is often an order of magnitude easier than identifying a production-reported issue.

I don’t see how that’s possible. When I am doing a comprehensive code review with rigorous functional testing of another developer’s work, it usually takes me around half as long to review as the developer took to write it. That includes the back and forth of MR issues and fixes. If AI writes it why would it take 100x longer to review than write it? At worst case it’s just a draft of something I can develop myself, so it shouldn’t take longer than 20 minutes. At best case it is a code review exercise so it takes me half as long.

Are you using the best models? I feel like my experience is completely different. I am an expert in a small part of a huge monolithic codebase that I’ve worked in for years. When customers report issues that would take me days or weeks to debug, AI can figure it out on the first try.

If landlords can already raise the price of rent, why haven’t they?

I hate how the framing is always that “an AI agent” did something. No, an OpenAI researcher breached Medicare by using an AI agent. These tools only do what they are directed to do. The human operator is wholly responsible for what the tool does.

[flagged]

That’s like saying private libraries are bad for freedom to read, or Blockbuster was bad for freedom to view movies

Distillation is a great thing for consumers. It improves competition and reduces the massive moats that OpenAI and Anthropic have in compute that would otherwise lead them to be duopolists. It’s also only fair that AIs trained on humanity’s wealth of knowledge for Pennie’s allow competition to train on humanity’s wealth of knowledge at market cost.

This is basically a compiler, but we’re moving up a layer of abstraction.