cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/44340504
Our actions and voices do make a difference! Keep AI out of games and reward original creative work.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/44340504
Our actions and voices do make a difference! Keep AI out of games and reward original creative work.
While people may be opposed even in theory to more tame things like a little code completion, there’s plenty of room to very obviously notice GenAI slop.
If people use LLM to generate text, they tend to make too much text, and it shows in how offputting it is. LLM may be able to generate a modest text without notice, but people will put in a two liner and get pages of garbage back and use that.
And of course famously the GenAI textures are generally offputting. Maybe you can have ‘generic metal texture’ and no one will notice, but try for specific details and it generally gets caught.
It is possible that human output that is similarly crappy gets mistaken for GenAI output, but oh well, slop is slop either way. It’s just that GenAI extends the slop to unbelievable magnitude.
I mean there’s the regular “can you really sell code you don’t own” kind of thing going for it. The companies have stolen all sorts of data; voices, music, raster, vector, video, books, film. It’d be shocking if they also haven’t scraped all the code that’s out there on the web.
Some of that is perfectly fine to alter, and sell. A lot of it isn’t. There are plenty of FOSS licenses that are restrictive in the sense that you’re free to use it and change it, but you can’t alter the license of it, and in many cases not sell it.
So when an LLM produces code based on that, what applies?
–
Then there’s obviously broader problems with ex-developers turned vibe coders coming out of the woodworks talking about how they can’t code anymore. I’ve people at my company joking about this, and the notion scares me. The idea that they’ve outsourced their thinking and problem solving skills to the point that they’re incapable of doing now it is terrifying.
I don’t know why anyone would willingly do that.
Well, unless you declare AI consumption fair use, only public domain is fair game, since every single license requires at least attribution. The courts regrettably seem to be buying the line that they are merely “learning” like a human and therefore exempt from the rules. All this ignoring that if a human reproduces something they “learned” close enough, they are on the hook for infringement, and in the AI scenario the codegen user has no sane way to know if the output is substantive and close enough to training material to count, since the origins are so muddled.
I just don’t understand the “real” developer to vibe coding scenario. Like, it really sucks, even Opus 4.6, at being completely off the leash. I don’t understand how anyone can take what it yields as-is if they ever knew how to specifically get what they want. I know people that might be considered “coding adjacent” who are enthusiastic at seeing a utility brought to life, though usually they haven’t that is not quite what they wanted and get frustrated when it doesn’t work right and no amount of “prompt” seems to get the things to fix it. They long were intimidated by “coding”, but LLM is approachable. Many of these folks “scripted” far more convoluted stuff than many “coders”, yet they are intimidated by coding.