I, ChatGPT
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
Once again, I've never argued in favor of AIs being granted human rights. (I actually find the concept horrifying, for reasons not relevant to this discussion.) I simply see no reason why learning should be considered "a [exclusively] human right" or an exclusively human capability.
At least in some jurisdictions human beings have the right to make reasonable amounts of noise. If you have a crying baby, your neighbors cannot sue you for disturbance even if it cries a lot. It's human, that's what humans do, part of life, end of story.
Obviously creating jarring noises by blowing air through a pipe with a bunch of strings is not an exclusively human capability. It's easily reproduced mechanically. Is it the same thing with equal legal standing? If you want to see a judge laughing in your face you could go and try.
-
New GitHub Copilot Research Finds 'Downward Pressure on Code Quality' -- Visual Studio Magazine
'We find disconcerting trends for maintainability.'
I'm just as shocked as you are.
-
-
@HardwareGeek said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
I'm just as shocked as you are.
You're also
ed.It's been kinda noisy here lately.
-
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
@HardwareGeek said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
I'm just as shocked as you are.
You're also
ed.It's been kinda noisy here lately.
QFT.
@clippy summarize last 333 posts
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
summarize last 333 posts
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
-
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
New GitHub Copilot Research Finds 'Downward Pressure on Code Quality' -- Visual Studio Magazine
'We find disconcerting trends for maintainability.'
I'm just as shocked as you are.
I quite like this line:
We conclude with suggestions for managers seeking to maintain high code quality in spite of the forces currently opposing it.
Managers don't give a shit. Technical managers will pay lip service to it but will never find the funding or time to clean up technical debt.
prone to violate the DRY-ness of the repos visited
That's a questionable metric but ties into another rant of mine about reuse being largely a crock outside of a narrow band of situations.
developers who used GitHub Copilot completed the task significantly faster -- 55 percent faster than the developers who didn't use GitHub Copilot
This is the metric that most people will take away from this article.
GitClear, which sells a cloud-based code review tool
-
Good grief.
@Gustav can you lend me back the "don't make me tap the sign" picture I made for you the other day?
-
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
New GitHub Copilot Research Finds 'Downward Pressure on Code Quality' -- Visual Studio Magazine
'We find disconcerting trends for maintainability.'
I'm just as shocked as you are.
We'll soon be evolving the run-of-the-mill web and corporate apps, genetic programming-style, anyway. Let WhateverGPT generate a bunch of variants, test them, tell WhateverGPT to cross-over and variate them, test them again until it's GoodEnough™ and ship it. Such code totally won't need to be readable by humans.
That's a bleak prediction, but nature got pretty far with that approach.
-
@Bulb said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
New GitHub Copilot Research Finds 'Downward Pressure on Code Quality' -- Visual Studio Magazine
'We find disconcerting trends for maintainability.'
I'm just as shocked as you are.
We'll soon be evolving the run-of-the-mill web and corporate apps, genetic programming-style, anyway. Let WhateverGPT generate a bunch of variants, test them, tell WhateverGPT to cross-over and variate them, test them again until it's GoodEnough™ and ship it. Such code totally won't need to be readable by humans.
That's a bleak prediction, but nature got pretty far with that approach.
You'll just have the electronic equivalent of sickle cell traits: "yeah, that one checkbox we always need is on its own page and you have to press
ZZ:xwq!to get there, but that's controlled by the module we needed to fix the SQL injections
"
-
@LaoC Yes … but nobody's gonna remember how to do it better, except probably for some niche engineering domains like safety-critical systems.
-
@Bulb said in I, ChatGPT:
nature got pretty far with that approach.
They say that but look at how many iterations it took.
-
@HardwareGeek said in I, ChatGPT:
@dkf said in I, ChatGPT:
You missed a key clause: "learning by humans is not prohibited".
"By humans" is a prepositional phrase, not a clause.Yes, I chopped that around a bit trying to make it impossible to misinterpret and forgot to clean up the wrapping.
-
-
@HardwareGeek said in I, ChatGPT:
I believe this thread has descended into the depths of “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
That's the motto for entire sections here.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
who could reasonably believe
Would anyone reasonably believe disrupting digital transmission of content on the grounds of potential infringement of as-stated-unenforceable law be considered "wrong"?
Yes, it's very reasonable to believe that. Leave the enforcement of the law to law enforcement!
And yet the law does nothing against HDCP. Everyone wins!
Yes, this is because of the DMCA, a legal abomination that should never have existed and urgently needs to be rolled back. If the DMCA were not in place, things like HDCP could not exist.
Be the change you want to see in the world!
I've been trying to make the case for DMCA repeal for a long time. People pushing maximalist ideology are really not helping.
That is a complete non-sequitur.
Arguing what the law should be and arguing what the law is are not the same, and conflating the two doesn't help the argument.
-
@Bulb said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
New GitHub Copilot Research Finds 'Downward Pressure on Code Quality' -- Visual Studio Magazine
'We find disconcerting trends for maintainability.'
I'm just as shocked as you are.
We'll soon be evolving the run-of-the-mill web and corporate apps, genetic programming-style, anyway. Let WhateverGPT generate a bunch of variants, test them, tell WhateverGPT to cross-over and variate them, test them again until it's GoodEnough™ and ship it. Such code totally won't need to be readable by humans.
That's a bleak prediction, but nature got pretty far with that approach.
And you know why it'll work?
Sure, it may or may not be cheaper, but it'll also be shit that nobody in their right mind should find acceptable. But that's been the state of the web for years now without AI, so if human developers don't care to produce things that don't fall over when you look at them funny, there's no reliability argument left.
-
https://old.reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/1adihfv/mad_max_muppets_furry_road_v6_update/
We need a movie.
Sample:
More images at the source.
Filed under:
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
No, I never said that. I said no one has a right to prohibit learning, and I said that anything not prohibited is permitted. There is no need for a specific "right to learn" -- for humans or otherwise -- to exist at all.
So what's the law that prohibits prohibiting learning?
What part of "anything not prohibited is permitted" do you not understand? It is literally that simple. But somehow when people invoke the magic C word, everyone loses their minds!
What's the magic C word that made me lose my mind?
And yet you're telling us that something is prohibited. And even the links you post in support of it argue against your point.
Part of the problem is that you talk about learning and think that's some kind of massive carte blanche to oblige people to provide you with material in a form you can consume.
I'm old enough to remember when you were accusing other people of confusing rights with responsibilities.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
Burden of proof remains on the accuser.
And let's all note, once more, that your accusations of sabotage, etc, are wholly unsupported, even by the links you post.
-
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
@HardwareGeek said in I, ChatGPT:
I believe this thread has descended into the depths of “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
That's the motto for entire sections here.
TBF... that accounts for most of the forum. We can't even agree about PHP. There's always that one guy...
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
The super-oversimplified version is, a contract that is not negotiated with active participation and mutual consent between the two parties has far less validity than one that is.
That you posted this amuses me much here, probably for reasons you refuse to comprehend.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
We've already been over this:
And you've fully convinced....yourself. We've already been over this: Your arguments are not as good as you think they are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc.
In which the appeal decision read, in part:
Google's unauthorized digitizing of copyright-protected works, creation of a search functionality, and display of snippets from those works are non-infringing fair uses. The purpose of the copying is highly transformative, the public display of text is limited, and the revelations do not provide a significant market substitute for the protected aspects of the originals. Google's commercial nature and profit motivation do not justify denial of fair use.
This was about digitizing books and allowing people to search them. It doesn't sound much like what the AI scrapers are doing. Credit where it's due, you didn't post a self-sabotaging (ha!) link this time. I had to do that work myself (
).
-
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
@HardwareGeek said in I, ChatGPT:
I believe this thread has descended into the depths of “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
That's the motto for entire sections here.
TBF... that accounts for most of the forum. We can't even agree about PHP. There's always that one guy...
No, we are actually mostly in agreement about PHP - it’s bad, it’s always been bad, but you can write things sensibly in it if you are careful, and PHP is making strides to be better. But it’s still bad.
The only argument I make in its favour is “honestly it’s not quite as bad as you remember”, not that it is suddenly a land of unicorns and whatnot.
And as the mythical front page proved at least once, you can write bad code in any language.
The problem with this thread is not so much “arguing with an idiot” as “arguing with someone who might as well live in a completely alternate reality” because from all the posts I saw (and from the snippets of replies with quotes), his perception of the world has little to no overlap with anyone else’s.
At some point it stopped making me angry and just instead filled me with pity because it betrays a view of the world so impressively naive it actually hurts. Then I added to the ignore list and tried to move on with my life - then what looks like hundreds (but probably isn’t that many) posts later, the “debate” is still raging.
Time to move on, people. You’re never going to convince him he’s wrong. Best leave the warning labels off and let him discover for himself.
-
@HardwareGeek said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
summarize last 333 posts
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
...says the person regurgitating maximalist talking points!
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
Part of the problem is that you talk about learning and think that's some kind of massive carte blanche to oblige people to provide you with material in a form you can consume.
I'm old enough to remember when you were accusing other people of confusing rights with responsibilities.
You're still doing it. Stop it. It's dishonest, and it's not going to fool me because I'm aware of the trick, so what's even the point of continuing to try?
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
Part of the problem is that you talk about learning and think that's some kind of massive carte blanche to oblige people to provide you with material in a form you can consume.
I'm old enough to remember when you were accusing other people of confusing rights with responsibilities.
You're still doing it. Stop it. It's dishonest, and it's not going to fool me because I'm aware of the trick, so what's even the point of continuing to try?
The funny part is that I think you actually believe this garbage even when you post things that so obviously contradict your own posts.
-
@boomzilla What have I posted that "so obviously" contradicts my own posts?
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla What have I posted that "so obviously" contradicts my own posts?
You make posts about obligations vs rights stuff and then you tell us people who post images have an obligation to post them in a format convenient to the AI scrapers, for instance.
Of course, when I point this out you tell me I'm lying about something.
-
@boomzilla I've explained it repeatedly. You have no excuse to continue lying like this.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla I've explained it repeatedly. You have no excuse to continue lying like this.
Your gaslighting doesn't work on me.
-
@boomzilla No matter how many times you try to turn a prohibition against doing something into an obligation to do something else, it does not become one. You are perfectly capable of understanding this. You have been capable of understanding this from the first time I explained it. You are too smart to be as stupid as you are playing here. Therefore, your playing dumb is a lie. Stop it.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla No matter how many times you try to turn a prohibition against doing something into an obligation to do something else, it does not become one. You are perfectly capable of understanding this. You have been capable of understanding this from the first time I explained it. You are too smart to be as stupid as you are playing here. Therefore, your playing dumb is a lie. Stop it.
It's true. I have no problem with that concept. You refuse to engage with the issue and and play pedantic dickweed games with definitions like this and hope you can trip someone up with some irrelevancy and forget about the real issue because your actual argument is so bad. But I'm not sure you realize this is what you do.
Then you do your best to ignore the evidence against you, some of which you inevitably post yourself, like the link to the legal definitions of sabotage in US law.
-
@boomzilla The real issue is Luddites trying to engage in sabotage. The secondary issue is the abuse of copyright to try to make it look like they have some right to do so.
But while we're on the subject of people allegedly not realizing just how bad their arguments are, somebody yesterday posted the Constitutional justification for copyright: Congress has the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
So what does that say? The thing that Congress has the power to do is not to hand out rights of exclusivity; it's "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Handing out exclusive rights is the mechanism by which this may be accomplished, nothing more. The exclusive rights are secondary and subservient to the progress being promoted.
Therefore, any interpretation of copyright law that actively hinders the progress of science and useful arts — such as by making one of the most revolutionary advancements in the history of computing illegal — is presumptively unconstitutional and void.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla The real issue is Luddites trying to engage in sabotage.
Yeah, what's up with that anyway? You still haven't cited the statute that would make it illegal say for Angelina Jolie to ruin the paparazzi's business of learning her whereabouts by making everybody entering or leaving her place wear a Guy Fawkes mask. Are you going to do that or do you prefer to keep accusing everybody of lying?
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla The real issue is Luddites trying to engage in sabotage. The secondary issue is the abuse of copyright to try to make it look like they have some right to do so.
It is not, for so many reasons that you continue to ignore.
But while we're on the subject of people allegedly not realizing just how bad their arguments are, somebody yesterday posted the Constitutional justification for copyright: Congress has the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
So what does that say? The thing that Congress has the power to do is not to hand out rights of exclusivity; it's "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Handing out exclusive rights is the mechanism by which this may be accomplished, nothing more. The exclusive rights are secondary and subservient to the progress being promoted.
Therefore, any interpretation of copyright law that actively hinders the progress of science and useful arts — such as by making one of the most revolutionary advancements in the history of computing illegal — is presumptively unconstitutional and void.
Of course, that's a value judgment. Here, you're valuing the advancement of the AI stuff over artists making stuff. Opinions will vary on this because it's a subjective value judgment. And so such categorical declarations as you are so fond of are inappropriate. You can certainly have an opinion on which you value more but that's a world away from the sort of objective reality you're trying to manufacture.
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
Of course, that's a value judgment. Here, you're valuing the advancement of the AI stuff over artists making stuff.
No, not at all. The idea that the two are in conflict is precisely the Luddite viewpoint I'm arguing against.
Of everyone who could be helped by generative AI, artists stand to benefit the most, because their understanding of how art works makes them the most capable users of the tool. This is how it has always been, and Luddites don't get this, which is what makes them so dangerous.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
Of course, that's a value judgment. Here, you're valuing the advancement of the AI stuff over artists making stuff.
No, not at all. The idea that the two are in conflict is precisely the Luddite viewpoint I'm
arguing againsthallucinating about.It's amazing how deeply you've inoculated yourself from other view points.
Of everyone who could be helped by generative AI, artists stand to benefit the most, because their understanding of how art works makes them the most capable users of the tool. This is how it has always been, and Luddites don't get this, which is what makes them so dangerous.
Yeah, I don't get why we don't just outsource all our decision making to you. You've got it figured out!
Now, don't get me wrong, I suspect that in 20 years this will be at the level of buggy whip controversy. But you don't get to push that sort of thing into hyperdrive by forcing people to help these guys, like with prohibiting use of tools like Nightshade, just because you've picked a winner.
-
TV network apologises after giving MP larger breasts in photograph
Channel Nine claims image of 31-year-old politician was altered by rogue automation on Photoshop
Channel Nine claimed that the image of Georgie Purcell, an MP from the state of Victoria, had been “inadvertently” altered through an automated process on Photoshop.
-
@DogsB rogue automation, do they mean AI?
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
@DogsB rogue automation, do they mean AI?
Yeah, but not in the good Skynet way.
-
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
“inadvertently” altered through an automated process on Photoshop.
"We photoshop the boobs in every image, it's standard operating procedure."
-
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
“inadvertently” altered through an automated process on Photoshop.
"We photoshop the boobs in every image, it's standard operating procedure."
All my photos come with boobs included... as a courtesy to photographers.
-
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
“inadvertently” altered through an automated process on Photoshop.
"We photoshop the boobs in every image, it's standard operating procedure."
If it was the Wail, sure, I’d assume SOP. The Torygraph, though, I thought was very very slightly classier.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
Of course, that's a value judgment. Here, you're valuing the advancement of the AI stuff over artists making stuff.
No, not at all. The idea that the two are in conflict is precisely the Luddite viewpoint I'm arguing against.
Of everyone who could be helped by generative AI, artists stand to benefit the most, because their understanding of how art works makes them the most capable users of the tool. This is how it has always been, and Luddites don't get this, which is what makes them so dangerous.
This is the "employers and employees don't have any conflicting interests" brainworm all over again. I'd sure love to live in a society without this ruinous competition where what you're saying would be true, alas we don't.
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
Of course, that's a value judgment. Here, you're valuing the advancement of the AI stuff over artists making stuff.
No, not at all. The idea that the two are in conflict is precisely the Luddite viewpoint I'm
arguing againsthallucinating about.It's amazing how deeply you've inoculated yourself from other view points.
You're more right than you know. Inoculation comes from prior exposure. Your ideas are not new. They're not even new to this discussion. Or this century. I've been studying this stuff for decades and I have seen them before. I'm aware of the historical record, of what has happened when they have been tried, and what has happened when people have chosen not to try them. This all informs my perspective on this. Nihil novi sub sole.
Of everyone who could be helped by generative AI, artists stand to benefit the most, because their understanding of how art works makes them the most capable users of the tool. This is how it has always been, and Luddites don't get this, which is what makes them so dangerous.
Yeah, I don't get why we don't just outsource all our decision making to you. You've got it figured out!
Now, don't get me wrong, I suspect that in 20 years this will be at the level of buggy whip controversy. But you don't get to push that sort of thing into hyperdrive by forcing people to help these guys, like with prohibiting use of tools like Nightshade, just because you've picked a winner.
It's called the perspective of history. About 40 years ago, Jack Valenti, President of the MPAA, stood before Congress and solemnly testified that "the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone." He saw this new device as nothing but a big copy machine that was going to destroy the film industry if it was not stopped by legal action. Thankfully for everyone involved, Congress didn't listen. Within 4 years the film industry was making more money from home video sales than it was from the box office!
12 years ago, large content creators, including (again!) the film industry, tried to get Congress to pass SOPA and PIPA, to strengthen the already-draconian IP enforcement of the DMCA. One of the main stated goals was to give them leverage against streaming sites. (Completely coincidentally, of course, this all started towards the end of 2011, right as it was becoming clear that Viacom was highly unlikely to win their lawsuit against YouTube.) A massive outcry from the Internet made it clear that any politician would have to be an idiot to support this, and it got shot down. Today, we have HBO Max, Disney+, Peacock, and all sorts of other streaming services being run by the very companies that tried to kill off streaming not that long ago. (Disney sure seems to consider it one of its most valuable assets, given they way they've chosen to push producing Disney+ content at the expense of moviemaking!)
They did not learn, and it's a pattern that has repeated over and over and over again throughout the history of copyright. How many times do the same people have to make the same mistakes, be proven completely wrong, and then try to make the exact same mistake again, before you feel justified in saying "you don't get to make this decision anymore"? (Particularly given the excessive amount of collateral damage involved in the decision they want to make?)
-
@Mason_Wheeler you're confusing ought for is and now everyone is laughing at you.
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
you're confusing ought for is
Where? I presented historical facts: things that happened in the past, predictions that were made, results that did not verify those predictions, and so on. That is firmly in the "is" realm. And I say, this gives us reason to believe that the people trying to push for new, stronger copyright enforcement for protection against the new scary thing du jour are highly likely to be wrong, because there is a long history of the same people making this same argument and being wrong about it every time.
I'm not confusing ought for is; I'm saying ought because of is. The most dangerous words in the English language are "this time will be different."
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
The only argument I make in its favour is “honestly it’s not quite as bad as you remember”, not that it is suddenly a land of unicorns and whatnot.
But at least it's not a land of ponies. That would be even worse — definitely a move in the wrong direction.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
you're confusing ought for is
Where? I presented historical facts: things that happened in the past, predictions that were made, results that did not verify those predictions, and so on. That is firmly in the "is" realm.
Sure, it's just irrelevant to the question of using Nightshade on one's images.
And I say, this gives us reason to believe that the people trying to push for new, stronger copyright enforcement for protection against the new scary thing du jour are highly likely to be wrong, because there is a long history of the same people making this same argument and being wrong about it every time.
And that's a fair opinion to have. But "likely to be wrong" about which is better long term is firmly in the "ought" category.
I'm not confusing ought for is; I'm saying ought because of is.
Yes, you explicitly say that but it's not what your actual argument is. You bring up all sorts of other red herrings and rabbit holes and are convinced that you're on the side of progress so you can't possibly be wrong. Of course, actually defending your position has apparently become an obviously losing battle even to you. Or maybe there's another reason you haven't answered this:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla The real issue is Luddites trying to engage in sabotage.
Yeah, what's up with that anyway? You still haven't cited the statute that would make it illegal say for Angelina Jolie to ruin the paparazzi's business of learning her whereabouts by making everybody entering or leaving her place wear a Guy Fawkes mask. Are you going to do that or do you prefer to keep accusing everybody of lying?
The most dangerous words in the English language are "this time will be different."
Yes, and once again it's the same old thing with you taking some crazy indefensible position and accusing people who point it out as liars.
