Given a German court talked about not having the prompt logs making it hard in a specific case to prove it had sufficient human input, maybe someone could do an open source hosting service where the Claude Code logs were fully uploaded with each commit, so that could be later proven? It would be cool anyway to have such a service, so people could learn how to do LLM coding better from the examples.
It looks like Codeberg want only copyrighted material in their service, so it is reliable in the future that e.g. licenses must be followed (e.g. GPL), and copyright doesn't suddenly get declared as being of the model owner, and it isn't a copy of something else.
That is a cautious reasonable position - in early days of LLM coding (3 years ago!) indemnity from model companies was a major issue globally because of the lack of clarity of the law around this. The US specifically has settled on it being (effectively?) public domain. But I don't think that is fully settled, and it certainly isn't settled in international copyright law.
The goal of the vague "mostly" in the Codeberg change is to ensure there is enough human input to the code they host, to be reasonably sure under German copyright law it is copyright of the person sharing it.
The advent of the internet was collaborative and based on introducing shared protocols for a couple of decades. It deserved criticism when globalised capitalism got involved, and monopolies started forming, leading to rent-seeking, excessive centralisation, and enshittification.
The impact is that the internet has a fraction of the value to improve people's lives as it should have. It is a very poor free market, incredibly poor competition because of lack of standards and protocols and interoperability. People's minds are ground down by social media, search engines don't work well any more and so on.
So yes - every new technology deserves many criticisms, so they can be addressed, and as a society we can gain the benefits of that technology and minimise the disadvantages.
The printing press lead to copyright, public libraries, universal literacy... All things which are now widely celebrated. They took centuries to work out, and are all government and regulatory intervention to fix problems critics noticed and campaigned about.
AI is the same, only it is at risk of moving much faster and having a much large negative impact before society reacts.
So no, most of the criticism of LLMs are not wrong - they are correct, as are the people saying the technology of LLMs is useful to people and the economy.
Critics are friends of a new technology - without responding to every criticism in a significant way, AI will rapidly lead to a Butlerian jihad. If you like AI, you should love criticism of AI even more.
I'm trying sourcehut at the moment https://sourcehut.org/ and it seems really good - very simple and fast. And does seem to be free for hosting open source projects.
This being a news site for hackers, I should point out you can use browser plugins to change the default feed. And (if you use an Android phone, but maybe there's a way with Safari?) you can run those plugins (at least on Firefox), so you can have the experience you want on mobile too!
I made one of these (called Instalamb for Instagram), but haven't maintained it recently as there wasn't much interest. There are plenty of others though.
I think my biggest disappointment with social media is not that capitalism made it harmful and addictive (that was inevitable), but that most people don't seem to care enough to even install an advert blocker, never mind something to make their feed cleaner. Despite having had a better experience before, and it being much easier to do than many things people do all the time in their daily lives.
I've been wondering this - I don't have an intuition for Anthropic's gaming around military applications, or how this stage could play out in terms of relationship to Government controlling AI.
Are there some Less Wrong posts or similar I should read that probably explain it?
I only did undergraduate level in Maths, and to me there is a key aesthetic element which makes it created. The choice of axioms to use, the choice of with theorems are interesting.
Yes the "truth" (doesn't exist, see Gödels theorem) is discovered in a vast, wild landscape that Mathematicians explore.
But which areas are worth exploring is a critical question. Partly driven by application, partly aesthetic. It's a quest for simple things that are a bit surprising, or that were hard to make the statements so simple.
There have been some US cases about this, but it isn't generally settled internationally. "Fair use" is a US specific thing. Even in the US there are ongoing cases.
Long term, getting locked into proprietary software development tools is a bad idea. And these models are extremely proprietary. The ability of the US Government to cancel them at any time is one real recent example of one category of problem.
Back in the 1990s the good C++ compilers were proprietary, eventually GCC and LLVM caught up, and now dominate. The pattern repeats in software development, and there's no reason to believe it won't continue.
Yes, right now it makes sense to use Opus 4.8, but it is good that a significant number of people are using other options, and making sure they work and are ready for when you need them.
Plus it is extremely fun and connecting and hackerish to do local coding with a local model. Try it.
However true that is, it now has only to compete with the US, where any model could be shut down by the Government on a whim with no clear rules at any time.
They can't under GDPR. The DMA is for market access - there are other laws for privacy. Those require use commensurate with what is needed for the service, so anyone who e.g. scraped all of a user's local info and stolen it would be breaking EU privacy laws themselves.
This is not complicated. Even in the US, every other industry is regulated to your benefit, you're just used to it and haven't realised. Digital technology obviously needs to be too. And yes, you have to do it properly.
NIST's similar unit in the US is now called CAISI https://www.nist.gov/caisi - interesting that the most recent post is an evaluation of DeepSeek capabilities, which sound more like watching China. But presumably this executive order alters the emphasis?
Well, or not spawn any external commands, and actually have tools made of code written by someone who thought about what the agents at each level should be limited to doing.
Made lots of the mySociety democracy websites - TheyWorkForYou, WhatDoTheyKnow and so on
Email me [email protected]