Comment by bgwalter 4 days ago
> Coding via prompt is simply a new form of coding.
No, it isn't. "Write me a parser for language X" is like pressing a button on a photocopier. The LLM steals content from open source creators.
Now the desperate capital starved VC companies can downvote this one too, but be aware that no one outside of this site believes the illusion any longer.
Maybe pointless, but I for one disagree with such rulings. Existing copyright law was formed as a construct between human producers and human consumers. I doubt that any human producers prior to a few years ago had any clue that their work would be fed into proprietary AI systems in order to build machines that generate huge quantities of more such works, and I think it fair to consider that they might have taken a different path had they known this.
To retroactively grant propriety AI training rights on all copyrighted material on the basis that it's no different from humans learning is, I think, misguided.
> Maybe pointless, but I for one disagree with such rulings.
That's a fair position: laws are for the nation (and in a democracy, that's supposed to mean the people), and the laws we make are not divine or perfect.
But until the laws change, it is what it is.
> To retroactively grant propriety AI training rights on all copyrighted material on the basis that it's no different from humans learning is, I think, misguided.
I would say it's not retroactive, it's the default consequence of what already is. Changing the law so this kind of thing is no longer allowed in the future is one thing, but it would be retro-active to say it had always been illegal.
I say retroactive not because the law changed, but because the law was never written with AI training in mind. I don't think existing copyright laws fit this situation, and I feel applying this interpretation to works already under copyright, when the creators of those works surely never envisioned this outcome, is an unfair interpretation.
there isn’t a company in the united states of 50 or more people which doesn’t have daily/weekly/monthly “ai” meetings (I’ve been attending dozens this year, as recently as tuesday). comments like yours exist only on HN where selected group of people love talking about bubbles and illusions while the rest of us are getting sh*t done at pace we could not fathom just year or so ago…
I am sure that "AI" is great for generating new meetings and for creating documentation how valuable those meetings are. Also it is great at generating justifications for projects and how it speeds up those projects.
I am sure that the 360° performance reviews have never looked better.
Your experience is contradicted by the usually business friendly Economist:
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2025/11/26/i...
this is same as polling data when Trump is running - no one wants to admit they will vote for DJT much like no one wants to admit these days that “AI” is doing (lots of) their work :)
jokes aside I do trust economist’s heart is in the right place but misguided IMO. “the investors” (much like many here on HN) expected “AI” to be magic thing and are dealing with some disappointment that most of us are still employed. the next stage of “investor sentiment” just may be “shoot, not magic but productivity is through the roof”
>productivity is through the roof
Where are the hard numbers? Number of games on Steam, new GitHub projects, new products released, GDP growth—anything.
> The LLM steals content from open source creators.
Not according to court cases.
Courts ruled that machine learning is a transformative use, and just fine.
Pirating material to perform the training is still piracy, but open source licenses don't get that protection.
A summary of one such court case: https://www.jurist.org/news/2025/06/us-federal-judge-makes-l...
> "Write me a parser for language X" is like pressing a button on a photocopier.
What is the prompt "review this code" in your view? Because LLM-automated code review is a thing now.