| |
| ▲ | TimTheTinker an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | "Do not fall into the trap of anthropomorphizing Larry Ellison. You need to think of Larry Ellison the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn - you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think 'oh, the lawnmower hates me' - lawnmower doesn't give a * about you, the lawnmower can't hate you. Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower. Don't fall into that trap about Oracle." --Bryan Cantrill | | |
| ▲ | hobo123 38 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | What about a guy with a lawnmower intentionally chopping off your foot? And what about a CEO making decisions on behalf of the corporate entity called Oracle? | |
| ▲ | cyanydeez 40 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | more and more it seems like he's referring to billionaires more or less. | |
| ▲ | burnte 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | The flaw in the analogy is that oracle is made of people. It's not a lawnmower, it's a group of people with human motivations and human thoughts. It's true they don't HATE people, but it's also true they absolutely have no conscience in negotiations and have zero concern about relationships. | | |
| ▲ | dan_q 34 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > It's true they don't HATE people Maybe so, but perhaps the most successful part of the AI marketing pitch has been exploiting management's hatred of labor (and vice versa). A significant motivator for a lot of the nonsensical AI layoffs and initiatives over the last three years has been that it's a great opportunity for management to get ill on their slaves. Tech labor got a little too big for their britches during the hiring spree of 2021, and AI was a great opportunity to take them down a peg, even if it offered little in the way of ROI. | |
| ▲ | pmkary 34 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Oh you fell into the trap... Just don't anthropomorphize Oracle... | |
| ▲ | 19 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | TimTheTinker 34 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | How many bureaucracies in history have behaved in deeply misanthropic ways, especially when led by misanthropic leaders? Don't underestimate the power of the desire to keep one's job to cause a large organization to behave towards its own self-perpetuation despite the moral lines that must be crossed by individuals to do so. |
|
| |
| ▲ | throw1234567891 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s been established that LLM-generated code is not copyrighted so I can fully understand the company living from copyrighted data to not accept LLM-generated contributions. | | |
| ▲ | inejge an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > It’s been established that LLM-generated code is not copyrighted If that's a reference to Thaler v. Perlmutter, the only thing that's been established is that an LLM can't be considered an author under the Copyright Act, only a human being can. It says nothing about the consequences of a human claiming authorship of LLM-generated code, which would be relevant here. | | | |
| ▲ | semiquaver 44 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is a false narrative based on a (IMO often intentional) misunderstanding. It has by no means been established by any court that LLM-generated code is not copyrightable. Thaler v. Perlmutter stands for a much narrower proposition and at any rate is not binding nationally, SCOTUS having denied certiorari. | | |
| ▲ | ethin 20 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | This is not necessarily true. While no court has explicitly come out and said that copyright does not apply to AI-generated works of authorship, the US copyright office has[0]: > Based on an analysis of copyright law and policy, informed by the many thoughtful comments in response to our NOI, the Office makes the following conclusions and recommendations:
> • Questions of copyrightability and AI can be resolved pursuant to existing law, without the need for legislative change.
> • The use of AI tools to assist rather than stand in for human creativity does not affect the availability of copyright protection for the output.
> • Copyright protects the original expression in a work created by a human author, even if the work also includes AI-generated material.
> • Copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material, or material where there is insufficient human control over the expressive elements.
> • Whether human contributions to AI-generated outputs are sufficient to constitute authorship must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
> • Based on the functioning of current generally available technology, prompts do not alone provide sufficient control.
> • Human authors are entitled to copyright in their works of authorship that are perceptible in AI-generated outputs, as well as the creative selection, coordination, or arrangement of material in the outputs, or creative modifications of the outputs.
> • The case has not been made for additional copyright or sui generis protection for AI-generated content.
> The Office will continue to monitor technological and legal developments to determine whether any of these conclusions should be revisited. It will also provide ongoing assistance to the public, including through additional registration guidance and an update to the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices. Congress or the courts could, of course, override the stance of the copyright office, but I think it would be highly unusual for them to do so (particularly for something like this). It would however be a lot better if congress just stepped in and said no outright, but until then this will have to do. [0]: https://www.copyright.gov/ai | | |
| ▲ | henryfjordan 4 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The courts are 100% going to have to interpret what is "sufficient human control" at some point. |
| |
| ▲ | throw1234567891 13 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | You are a false narrative. I’m just repeating what I read. The thing is, it’s murky waters. Someone’s going to challenge it but do you want to be the guy who takes it on a chin? The sibling comment lays this out and my original comment above is based on exactly the same link. |
| |
| ▲ | lxgr an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I highly doubt that that's the last word on that matter, but even if: Even before LLMs you could combine individual non-copyrighted components into something copyrighted. |
|
|
