grayhatter

> Why assume that? Could you not imagine that legislation is often meant to signal values to voters as much or more than it is intended to solve real problems.

You mean something like, to signal to voters they're trying to solve a problem voters want changed? Or a problem voters say they have?

I didn't mean to imply it would fix the problem, or that the problem would be fixed. Just that there's desire for [thing targeted], is something enough people would want to change.

I also said "assume that" for the sake of the argument/discussion given you started by saying you didn't understand. I say it's trivial to understand if assume there are other incentives where destroying the product is desirable. Thus making the incentive you mentioned, not very strong, (in context).

You're confusing being sarcastic with sardonic. It's also a grossly dishonest comparison.

> Managing and getting rid of free stuff is very expensive and hard. But that someone else's problem.

While I think we deeply disagree with what "hard" means, it does feel like its the kind of cost a reasonable organization would willingly take on. I compare it to the chefs, or restauranteers who after they're done cooking for the day bring all the food that they have to a local food bank or shelter instead of throwing it away. That's an equally expensive endevor, just on different scale. I think it's reasonable to expect all organizations to act with some moral character, and given larger companies have demonstrated they lack moral character, and would otherwise hyper optimize into a negative sum game they feel they can win. I think some additional micromanaging is warranted. You don't?

Everyone should be discouraged from playing a negative sum game.

Assume the legislation is trying to reduce a real problem. Why does that problem exist if that incentive is actually really strong in practice?

I assume it's not actually a really strong incentive in context.

> This is ironic since these two crowds are mostly solving the same type of problems. It's just democrats vs republicans type of split, some of it is just for show and philosophical.

This is a painfully shallow framing.

Yes, programming languages solve problems by emitting instructions that a programmable logic chip can use to preform calculations on input resulting in output. And the scaffolding you use to get there isn't just a matter of philosophical show. Rust as a first order decision will refuse to emit perfectly valid programs because it's unable to prove it's correctness. Zig will emit any program it has enough information to do so. People coding in rust off load much of the effort in understanding and proving that correctness to the compiler. In Zig that relationship is reversed, where the compiler offloads that responsibility to the programmer.

The person you responded to is correct. For some people. Rust solves the difficult and annoying problems, for others it creates difficult and annoying problems.

Some people like creating art, some people like creating software. I guess you could frame that as philosophical, but to call it a political show, belies ignorance to the interactions between systems and predispositions of individuals.

> Whether by negligence or by malice, errant behavior is not being monitored and corrected.

Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from actual malice and must be treated the same.

I'm equally surprised we don't fend off these rampant goblin threats too!

More pragmatically, such a system would cost multiple millions, and would take years to actually stabilize in a manner that would recover the fictitious costs to shutting down the airports with gaps. (i.e. I'm surprised you so easily bought into the 500k figure)

All because a bunch of idiots lost track of their one balloon, once? The asymmetry is banal. There are cheaper ways that require less planning than that.

I've replied much deeper in the other thread. But my concrete problem is that insubstantial arguments can't override the overwhelming evidence I've already acquired. Just trust me bro; I'm different from every other vibe coder you've seen dump slop on somebody, might be true but is not very compelling.

I don't care about how you use codegen, I want to understand why you discard all of the process, while still claiming credit for writing it? Perhaps you don't say I wrote this. Or I made this. Perhaps you do say, I asked an LLM to create this. Or disclose an LLM generated most of the lines. Or perhaps you do modify most of it, but I've never seen the latter in real life. And even then, that doesn't help answer my question about when people who aren't built different like you, why isn't that plagiarism?

Because when I look at something created by the team, I do give the engineering manager credit for their contributions, they helped build the team. But I definitely don't think they helped create the thing.

> Yes I dont decide anymore exactly which line number the function is in, but that never mattered did it? What matters is how your objects compose and how you handle edge cases. I still do that.

I would say it does matter, and always did.

Obviously, not every single line order matters with performance results that you can measure. That's not what I'm saying. But every decision does add up to who deserves the credit for the thing. Especially with how you describe your role. And then you assure me for each of those critical decisions, it's you who makes that decision.

In another thread you accuse me of constructing a strawman and then ignoring any counter evidence. But not a single person has ever provided anything above a token "I'm just built different", contained within a response as if the fictional person, sorry, "strawman" I've created is a personal attack. If it doesn't accurate represent you, why does it bother you? I'm getting strong, thou doth protest too much vibes.

Again, I'm not directly accusing you. I try very hard to believe someone when they tell me something. So I am actively trying to believe the things you've said. But you offer nothing above "nah man, I'm different, promise". Meanwhile I have dozens of examples of people vibe coding, and responding to the answer of, 'why' with: "I don't know, the LLM did that". Your example I've never seen, not once. My example is terrifyingly common.

When I try to merge what you promise yeu do, with what I've actually seen occur out in real life. I end up with, what I'm sure you'll angerly object as, just another strawman, but again I'm asking for something other than hollow reassurances: Because what you describe is close to an artist, teaching an apprentice. The apprentice does the work, perhaps exactly as instructed by the artist. But then when the artists sells the work. They claim that it's their creation. As if the apprentice never existed. It's disgusting behavior when the apprentice is a person, but shameful for an entirely different reason if the apprentice is a large block of token weights.

I don't for a second believe, all you have opencode do for you is refactor based on a specification you wrote (belief != disbelief) but still feel you deserve the assumption of the best possible interpretation. If all your apprentice did was clean the brushes, and take the pottery out of the kiln. Then yes, you created everything. But given my assumption that's not actually what reality looks like, help me understand the delta between these two examples?

They don't say, My team did this. Or Look how good I am teaching, my student created this. Or anything of the nature. They pass off work and effort, and expertise, As if they wrote every line of code. Some people do sheepishly admit the used an LLM when writing some patch. But many MANY more, don't.

If you actually don't feel like you're misrepresenting how much credit you deserve. Then I'm hoping you can explain to me, why so many people who don't try, and just blindly trust the vibe slop, don't feel embarrassed? Because I'm so far from it, that I don't have the context required to understand that lack of integrity. But perhaps someone who does it the correct way can explain it to me?

> “write me an app” and ships it unread…

That is in fact, the behavior I see most often.

> What I described was directing, reviewing, and editing.

You didn't actually describe any of that though? You asserted that's what you do, but didn't describe any of those steps.

If you do, you'd be the first person I see actually do that when using LLM codegen. Most people who advocate for it, do behave that way. You're mistakenly taking my rhetorical argument against the more common, and substituting your own interpretation of how things are. Which is the very thing you're attempting to chastise me for doing. Just as you're unconvinced by my rejection of your hypothetical, I'm unconvinced by yours.

I might agree if you spend the same amount of time and effort, it wouldn't count as plagiarism. But if it's not faster, then what's the point?

> The rest is breathless gibberish dressed up as moral clarity.

Sure, that's a fair interpretation if you want to feel like a superior asshole. But really I was attempting to describe how I view the way most people interact with LLM codegen, before claiming they did all the work. Which if you recall, was my original question; why is that view wrong? What details would convince me I've misunderstood something?

> If I paste in a blog post verbatim and pretend I wrote it, that’s plagiarism. If I use a tool to generate a starting point and shape it into what I need, that’s just a different kind of authorship.

If you cloned chapters from multiple books, from multiple different authors, didn't decide on the sentence structure, didn't choose the words yourself, didn't decide which order your going to place these chapters, didn't name the characters. At what point do you no longer get credit for writing the book?

What if it's code? what if you didn't decide which order you should call these functions. Didn't make the decision about if you're gonna write var i, or idx, or index. Didn't make a decision if this should be an u32, or an i64. Didn't read any of the source code from that new dependency you just added. Didn't name the functions, oh but no, you did have to edit that one function because it wouldn't compile, so you just renamed it like the error suggested... At what point does the effort you put in become less significant than the effort duplicated from the training set? How much of the function do you have to write yourself, before you take credit? How many chars have to by typed by your fingers, before you claim. You made this?

That's a great question, I've never tried to draw a concrete line before. Code is inherently creative. But it's not art, it doesn't map 1:1 like that.

But I wouldn't consider attempting to duplicate a painting, plagiarism if you painted it yourself with your hand (assuming you mention or reference the original author, or it's well know e.g. starry night) . I would consider it plagiarism if you duplicated it via photo, or other automated method.

I'd translate it to code as; if you're looking at stack overflow for the answer, if you understand it, before writing your own implementation, that's learning, and not plagiarism. But if you copy out the whole function without understanding how to implement it yourself, that would be.

The person I replied to said

> Having opencode doesn't preclude me from making elegant code. It just takes away the carpel tunnel.

I assume he's asking the LLM to generate upwards of multiple hundreds of lines of code. Let's assume he's does understand all of it. (Something that defies my understanding around how most LLM users use codegen.) Then you have a sister comment who claims you can write multiples more code/projects using LLMs. At a certain point your ability to understand the code must fall away. And at that point, if you didn't have the majority of the creative input. Why call it your work?

I assume you're an artist, if you have an LLM generate you a picture. Do you feel like it's work you've created? Did the inspiration for where each line should start, and end, come from the contents of your mind? Or was it sampled from a different artist? Given the exact same prompt, would you draw the same lines next week? Next month? Because the LLM would.

There's no doubt it's easy to draw parallels in any creative work, both from art an code. But if you didn't make the decision about where to place the function, about which order you want to call them, if you're gonna do error handling deep down as close to the error as possible, or you're optimizing for something different, and decided long ago that all errors should bubble back up to the main function.

One, or two, or even a half dozen of decisions might seem insignificant, but together, if you didn't really make any of them. How can you claim it's code you wrote? Why do you feel proud of the work of others, sampled and mapped into a training set, and then regenerated into your repo, as if it's work you put forth? All of that should be read as the rhetorical you, I know you're not making that argument. But would you make it? When you share a meme with your friend, do you claim you created the meme? Even if you use a memegen, and change the words to reference your in joke. Do you feel like you've created that art? Or are you using the art of someone else to share the idea you want to share? I assume it's the latter, but

They said "Having opencode doesn't preclude me from making elegant code." They're taking credit for making the elegant code, just as if they were taking credit for inventing the meme. There's a different amount of effort involved, and that effort, or the source of it, is significant when talking about who deserves the credit, and the sense of pride.

Surely you have 10-30 examples you want to share?

Or even just 1 or 2?

> I created this with some kind of genai

To me, it just feels like plagiarism. Can you explain why it doesn't feel like plagiarism to you?

> Making it a rule that you have to use separate chains for separate purposes is a good rule from a general design standpoint.

No it's not. It's a specific argument, that's true only in specific cases. You shouldn't handle knives, is equally a good rule from a general design standpoint. But nonsensical when you're a chef.

You should have separate chains is a reasonable decision when the ability to rotate out a compromised chain, and insulate some downtime, from other chains/usages is desirable. Needing to manage multiple cert chains is more overhead. Making use or maintenance harder. It increases complexity.

Large companies have never been afraid of more overhead. It's their singular advantage.

Removing features someone is using, and calling it better security, when it doesn't actually meaningfully reduce or remove some risk is weaponized incompetence. And sufficiently advanced incompetence, is....

There's no world where anyone gains additional protection, from a 3rd party compromise. Or one where LE has one of chains compromised, but doesn't rotate all of them.

Dragging PKI into the 21st Century! Just like they dragged manifest v3 into the 21st century!

It's for your own good dontchaknow!

Because I have some experience with FOSS, I know you don't get the recognition that you deserve. So on behalf of everyone who's too distracted to say thank you.

Thank you!

Admittedly, it did take a day (less than), but once I got used to the interface Zulip provides. It's better than what I would have asked for! It's phenomenal software! The whole experience is better than anything else that exists. And everyone charging for the same features should feel embarrassed given how much better Zulip is!

Genuinely, it's impressive what y'all have created. So thank you!

> Does that make them less productive?

I could use AI to churn out hundreds of thousands of lines of code that doesn't compile. Or doesn't do anything useful, or is slower than what already exists. Does that mean I'm less productive?

Yes, obviously. If I'd written it by hand, it would work ( probably :D ).

I'm good with the machine milled lumber for the framing in my walls, and the IKEA side chair in my office. But I want a carpenter or woodworker to make my desk because I want to enjoy the things I interact with the most. And don't want to have to wonder if the particle board desk will break under the weight of my frankly obscene number of monitors while I'm out of the house.

I'm hopeful that it won't take my industry too long to become inoculated to the FUD you're spreading about how soon all engineers will lose their job to vibe coders. But perhaps I'm wrong, and everyone will choose the LACK over the table that last more than most of the year.

I haven't seen AI do anything impressive yet, but surely it's just another 6mo and 2B in capex+training right?

> I think the 10 lines of code people worry their jobs now become obsolete.

I'm gonna assume you think you're in the other camp, but please correct me if I'm mistaken.

I'd say I'm in the 10 lines of code camp, but I'd say that group is the least afraid of fictionalized career threat. The people that obsess over those 10 lines are the same people who show up to fix the system when prod goes down. They're the ones that change 2 lines of code to get a 35% performance boost.

It annoys me a lot when people ship broken code. Vibe coded slop is almost always broken, because of those 10 lines.

> We don't stand a chance and we know it.

Drugs, alcoholism, overeating, orgies, doom scrolling, gambling.

Addictions are a problem or danger to humans, no doubt. But we don't stand a chance? I'm not sure the evidence supports your argument.

> I'm skeptical about banning design patterns just because people might overuse them.

I used to be opposed, now I'm not. I strongly believe human specialization is the important niche humans have adapted, and that should be encouraged. Another equally significant part of human nature is, trust and gullibility. People will abuse these aspects of human nature to give themselves an unfair advantage. If you believe lying is bad, and laws should exist to punish those who do to gain an advantage. Or if you believe that selling an endless, and addictive substance should restricted. You already agree.

There's are two bars in your town, and shady forms of alcohol abound. One bar is run by someone who will always cut someone off after they've had too many. And goes to extreme lengths to ensure that the only alcohol they sell is etoh. Another one is run by someone who doesn't appear to give a fuck, and is constantly suggesting that you should have another, some people have even gone blind.

I think a just society, would allow people to specialize in their domain, without needing to also be a phd in the effects of alcohol poisoning, and which alcohols are safe to consume, and how much.

> Growing up, I had to go to the theater to see movies, but that didn't make cliffhangers and sequels any less compelling. Now we binge entire Netflix series and that's fine, but short-form video needs government intervention?

Yes, the dopamine feedback loop of short form endless scrolling has a significantly different effect on the brain's reward system. I guess in line with how everyone shouldn't need to be a phd, you also need people to be able to believe the conclusions of experts as well.

> The real question is: where do we draw the line between protecting people from manipulative design and respecting their ability to make their own choices?

It's not as linear of a distinction. We don't have to draw the line of where we stop today. It's perfectly fine to iterate and reevaluate. Endless scroll large data source algorithm's are, without a doubt, addictive. Where's the line on cigarettes or now vapes? Surely they should be available, endlessly to children, because where do you draw the line?

(It's mental health, cigarettes and alcohol are bad for physical health, but no one (rhetorical speaking) gives a shit about mental health)

> If we're worried about addictive patterns, those exist everywhere—streaming platforms, social feeds, gaming,

I'd love to ban micro transactions and loot boxes (gambling games) for children.

> even email notifications.

reductive ad absurdism, or perhaps you meant to make a whataboutism argument?

> My concern isn't whether TikTok's format is uniquely dangerous.

Camels and Lucky Strike are both illegal for children to buy.

> It's whether we trust adults to manage their own media consumption, or if we need regulatory guardrails for every compelling app.

We clearly do. Companies are taking advantage of the natural dopamine system of the brain for their advantage, at the expense of the people using their applications. Mental health deserves the same prioritzation and protection as physical health. I actually agree with you, banning some activity that doesn't harm others, only a risk to yourself, among reasonably educated adults is insanely stupid. But that's not what's happening.

> I'd rather see us focus on media literacy and transparency than constantly asking governments to protect us from ourselves.

I'd rather see companies that use an unfair disparity of power, control, knowledge and data, be punished when they use it to gain an advantage over their consumers. I think dark patterns should be illegal and come with apocalyptic fines. I think tuning your algorithm's recommendation so that you can sell more ads, or one that recommends divisive content because it drives engagement, (again, because ads) should be heavily taxed, or fined so that the government has the funding to provide an equally effective source of information or transparency.

> You can't legislate intelligence...

You equally can't demand that everyone know exactly why every flavor of snake oil is dangerous, and you should punish those who try to pretend it's safe.

Especially when there's an executive in some part of the building trying to figure out how to get more children using it.

The distinction requiring intervention isn't because these companies exist. The intervention is required because the company has hired someone who's job is to convince children to use something they know is addictive.

> Not clarifying is the right thing to do.

Legally? Likely not. Ethically, definitely not.

Legally, (in the US at least,) any ambiguity in the interpretation of a contract will most often be interpreted to benefit of the party that didn't draft the contract. In this case, the interpretation of license would likely benefit the user. But then, I'm only repeating what you've already said. So the ambiguity here doesn't benefit them legally speaking. I do agree, a frontline engineer shouldn't be trying to clarify the legal meaning in a github issue (without the legal expertise a good legal team would contribute). I don't agree that leaving the understanding to be ambiguous, is a solid legal decision.

Then, ethically. If someone ask if the license is trying to trap them, and all you do is shrug. You're not the good guy, ethically speaking.

> This is why using standard well drafted licenses verbatim is so useful. Legal phrases that have established meanings clear things up for legally even if they confuse the rest of us.

This may be pedantically true, but the part that trumps the US doctrine of contra proferentem, is the original intent that both parties likely understood. The legal interpretation, while you say it may be confusing for some people, doesn't override what the parties reasonably understood the contract to state. Or in this case, license, to grant.

That is to say, if you represent your offering as open source, and enjoy the benefits of such. It's a fundamental error to assume the courts will later back you up when you change your mind, and attempt a rug pull. And that's ignoring the ethical implications, which are enough for me to wanna peace out. (I.e. if you're pissing off your users and supporters, it was the wrong decision.)

> It’s estimated that approximately 1% of the general population is estimated to have high levels of psychopathy.

> These people don’t need an excuse, and have no reason, to be dangerous.

Psycohpathy is defined as behaviors that conflict with pro-moral and pro-social norms. Are you trying to say that antisocial behavior is exclusively genetic, and isn't influenced by the environment? And if it is influenced by the environment, how does that conflict with what I said.

Or, more directly do you think that someone abandoned and abused by their caregivers as a child wouldn't test high on a psychopathy evaluation?

Also IIRC that 1.2% is just any clinically significant symptoms. Non-violent, pro-social, low empathy. Would still test high on that test.

You participate in $the_thing so surely you must support $the_thing, right?

I would get value from stealing, I don't steal from people. The argument or question isn't about if it has value to some people, the question is, does the value to some people outweigh the costs that are imposed on others.

> instead of simply focusing on the easy parts like pollution and energy?

Yeah, I completely agree AI is fantastic with no downsides; as long as you ignore all of it's down sides.

Do you think it's a good thing to ignore the downsides when advocating for something?

> Then, when the city council was only considering the economics of it, they jumped at the chance for the tax revenue and infrastructure investment. With essentially the same exact plan as before, one of the council members who rejected it before the NDA said "this is exactly the kind of deal a city should take."

Just think at how much extra money would start coming into the state, if they just allowed $company to build an orphan grinding machine!

> why it was needed in ...

"Needed"

I willingly pay more to participate in the economies that behave ethically. If you have to hide who you are, and by proxy, how you behave, to get what you want... It's exhausting listen to people advocate for, or be apologists for people who are intentionally ignoring consent.

> I think that arrest was warranted until thy could independently confirm the phone numbers…

Your premise is correct, you conclusion is stupid. "hey jon, pull out your phone, is this the same number listed on the county webpage for this office?" - "yeah jack sure is" - "hey thanks for your patience guys, and thanks for your help protecting the court house from the baddies"

Even if you couldn't do that, and couldn't hold them on site. Sure, transport them back to hold while you have the person on the phone drive down to the police station with id. There was NO reason to charge and arraign them.

> So obviously they don't think it's safe to use broadly.

More likely, everything gets added to the list because there shouldn't be false positives, it's worth investigating to make sure there isn't an adjacent gap in the security systems.

Leaked is not the correct word here. Generally as it's used, it implies some intent to disclose, the information for it's own purposes. You would call a disclosure to the war thunder forums a leak, because the intent was to use that information to win an argument. You wouldn't call Leaving boxes of classified information in a wearhouse where you'd normally read them a leak. (At least not as a verb). Likewise you wouldn't call it a leak if you mistakenly abandoned them in a park.

That said, IIRC For Official Use Only is the lowest level of classification (note not classified) it's not even NOFORN. It's even multiple levels below Sensitive But Unclassified.

So, who cares?

Much more significant is he failed the SCI/full poly... that means you lied about something. Yes I know polys don't work, but the point of the poly is to try to ensure you've disclosed everything that could be used against you, which ideally means no one could flip you or manipulate you. The functional part is to determine if you have anxiety about things you might try to hide, because that fear can be used against you. No fear/anxiety, or nothing you're trying to hide means you're harder to manipulate.

That feels bad even ignoring the whole hostile spys kinda thing.

I doubt that, but I only mentioned it because I just learned about that literally last night while watching video of a few police training officers review/discuss the video of the ND

> Now a situation has been created where everyone involved in those Signal chats could be...charged with conspiracy.

That's factually incorrect. You you're welcome to conspire all you want. It doesn't become a chargeable offence until you, or someone else who has contributed to the planning, commits some overt or articulable action towards that end.

It's not illegal to be present in a signal chat. It's not even illegal to hypothesize violent resistance/protest. It *is* illegal to make plans to violently protest, and then pack your car full of weapons.

Conspiracy is notably different from solicitation; because it's also illegal to encourage someone to commit a crime, even if you don't yourself plan to participate.

> Conspiracy charges were political punishment.

Nah, I do agree it probably gives the appearance of it being politically motivated. But regardless of how you feel when "your side" is "attacked". That's kinda how the legal system works. If you don't charge them with conspiracy, all the evidence you've collected where they admit they know what they're doing is illegal runs the risk of being thrown out, or otherwise challenged. If you want to charge someone for assault or battery, and you have text messages where someone claims they don't care if someone gets hut. If you exclusively charge them with the assault or the battery. And they put forward the affirmative defense of, yeah it happened, but they pushed me first. You've just opened the door to an acquittal because the video someone got starts halfway through.

Being careless enough to allow that to happen might even be prosecutorial malpractice.

> Compare it to the situation in Minnesota.

I try to avoid whataboutism.

> Can protesters show up at an someone else's workplace and start blowing whistles at everyone? Diners? Medical offices?

Yes? I've heard of protests almost every where, haven't you?

Follow up question, are Diner servers/cooks or physicians/nurses empowered to legally abduct people by force, and then protected from liability for any crimes or needless harm by qualified immunity?

If not, I think it's fair to apply different standards to different cases, and asinine to say, well what about [completely different group, with a completely different set of objectives, and completely different set of restrictions, doing a completely different thing]