People with limited knowledge using AI to achieve things that they personally aren’t able to do
People with knowledge using AI to achieve things human brains can’t do
I’m not smart enough to know which one of these actually applies in this situation, but I feel that they are distinctly different and justify a use case. My layman understanding is reverse engineering software like this is completely bit feasible with just human willpower
If you are informed on this subject please enlighten me which of these apply if any
It’s not an “old man yells at cloud” take at all, sweetie. It’s just the truth. Your overgrown autocomplete isn’t a substitute for actual knowledge and skill.
So when I use Photoshop that’s filled with AI tools or After Effects with AI 3D tracking to accelerate my project, it’s not my project because the work was made easier because of modern tools?
Prompting an AI agent is not the same as using photoshop. It is more comparable to commissioning something (art, code, writing, etc). You don’t have authorship, the LLM does in this case. That doesn’t mean you can’t own the piece that gets created, that’s what commissioning is, you just can’t claim you authored it. Though whether you or the company that runs the model owns the output is still not a settled question legally speaking.
No, this is pretty settled. Generative outputs such as these are not owned by anyone. As you said, the AI “authored” it similarly to a commissioned work and cannot hold a copyright so there was nothing to assign to the prompt writer.
Last I checked, AI creations cannot be copyrighted if human work was not involved (no human - no copyrights). This means that if you had to do something by yourself, even compiling, then there was human. While for AI generated images it’s quite clear you will not own it, but software tends to be more advanced, ChatGPT doesn’t just send you an exe file, you have to put it together by yourself.
Again this is the difference between authorship and ownership. While I’m no lawyer, to my understanding you must demonstrate that what you did was genuinely transformative to claim authorship.
You use compiling the code an LLM gives you as an example of this. Does a person running gentoo have the ability to claim authorship of all the software on their machine because they compiled it?
I think the only thing you can certainly claim authorship over is the prompt(s) that were used to generate the output.
Another good example of this is compilers. How often do you see people claim authorship of the assembly generated as an intermediary step of the gcc?
And thats why you either do a vibecoded project or you do a regular project. You will not feel any loss if the vibecode gets ripped off. So don’t mix the two.
This is my major gripe with any new tool that makes life easier. It enables even more lazy people to do something and you won’t know if you’re the victim of someone else’s laaziness until it’s too late.
Yawn, more cuck coded bullshit. No thanks
I feel like there are two things
I’m not smart enough to know which one of these actually applies in this situation, but I feel that they are distinctly different and justify a use case. My layman understanding is reverse engineering software like this is completely bit feasible with just human willpower
If you are informed on this subject please enlighten me which of these apply if any
I’m sorry but this increasingly an “old man yells at cloud” take. This is not going away, and will just get more common.
It’s not an “old man yells at cloud” take at all, sweetie. It’s just the truth. Your overgrown autocomplete isn’t a substitute for actual knowledge and skill.
Well it kinda is because nobody else managed to get this running on PC in all those years before AI.
Knowledge and skill didn’t port Bloodborne to the PC tho
It did tho, I remember a project working way before AI.
Meaning, they code anything they want while you can’t and just stand aside and look?
EDIT: Perfect
Bad meme. It’s not their project!
Good meme, just doesn’t fit this specific scenario perfectly.
But that’s kind of the point, isn’t it? The code cuck forfeits authorship.
Yeah, I mean usage of the meme, not the meme itself.
It’s their project that was based on existing game.
They did nothing aside from the instructions. So their project is setting the agent, not the result of the agent.
So when I use Photoshop that’s filled with AI tools or After Effects with AI 3D tracking to accelerate my project, it’s not my project because the work was made easier because of modern tools?
It’s a yes or no question.
It’s a false equivalence, and so clear I can’t believe you don’t know it.
Prompting an AI agent is not the same as using photoshop. It is more comparable to commissioning something (art, code, writing, etc). You don’t have authorship, the LLM does in this case. That doesn’t mean you can’t own the piece that gets created, that’s what commissioning is, you just can’t claim you authored it. Though whether you or the company that runs the model owns the output is still not a settled question legally speaking.
No, this is pretty settled. Generative outputs such as these are not owned by anyone. As you said, the AI “authored” it similarly to a commissioned work and cannot hold a copyright so there was nothing to assign to the prompt writer.
Suppose the user could claim ownership of the prompt used to create the work; unless that was also created using an AI.
Last I checked, AI creations cannot be copyrighted if human work was not involved (no human - no copyrights). This means that if you had to do something by yourself, even compiling, then there was human. While for AI generated images it’s quite clear you will not own it, but software tends to be more advanced, ChatGPT doesn’t just send you an exe file, you have to put it together by yourself.
Again this is the difference between authorship and ownership. While I’m no lawyer, to my understanding you must demonstrate that what you did was genuinely transformative to claim authorship.
You use compiling the code an LLM gives you as an example of this. Does a person running gentoo have the ability to claim authorship of all the software on their machine because they compiled it?
I think the only thing you can certainly claim authorship over is the prompt(s) that were used to generate the output.
Another good example of this is compilers. How often do you see people claim authorship of the assembly generated as an intermediary step of the gcc?
And thats why you either do a vibecoded project or you do a regular project. You will not feel any loss if the vibecode gets ripped off. So don’t mix the two.
Honest question to help me identify with all the constant ‘new decomp!’ spam - How can you tell on this one?
Check the github linked in the post, (nearly?) every commit is “coauthored” by Claude.
Thanks! That site never feels user friendly. TIL - I could just click on commits.
GitHub isn’t for users it’s for devs.
Then why is it widely used to distribute software to users?
The same reason people use Discord for their software comms, devs are notoriously lazy.
True, but for new dev onboarding and general use (especially with the rise of Linux) it SHOULD be more user friendly. Ive been saying this for years.
Literally all the modern recompilations are AI-driven.
There are various levels of involvement of human actors in the loop, but if you don’t want to use any AI project, just ignore them all.
My largest gripe is they all feel like they’re just tossed out there en mass like a speedrun and lord only knows if they’d have any post support.
This is my major gripe with any new tool that makes life easier. It enables even more lazy people to do something and you won’t know if you’re the victim of someone else’s laaziness until it’s too late.