TinyLetter shut down by Mailchimp, so I built the letterdrop
github.com
github.com
Judging by the fact you generated it with an LLM, the quality of the code, and skimming the videos, I’m highly suspicious of the claim and don’t think you’re basing that assertion on anything defensible.
Adding “make the code secure and efficient” to your prompt doesn’t make it so.
I fear for the future quality of software products. Quality was already going down the drain and LLMs have the ability to accelerate the decline.
(400mb Python script with supply chain CVEs)
Welcome to software postmodernism.
Then at some point you have to prevent the users from harming themselves - and devices get locked in walled gardens; and that arguably works for everyone too.
There are exceptions, kudos to the EU for working to protect user rights. This software postmodernism will go only as far as we allow it.
Hard disagree. Abstraction by itself does not correlate with declining quality, you can be a very competent developer working in a high level language, or a crappy developer working in low level languages.
This should be the first paragraph in the README.
It's not responsible to release something like this in the first place, let alone without a big red warning sign in front of it.
One can license without legal warranty and still do it responsibly. If they don't, others will judge as irresponsible. This is more of a social contract than a licensing one.
I think it’s rather we have a very small number of reference cases from the past, but since things changed dramatically since then everything is still up in the air
Always fun to see the „AI is special, no rules apply“ crowd.
That's just a small part of the question. Some of the questions we still need answers for are:
1) If ChatGPT produces an answer that is very similar to something it was trained on, can you use that answer? Or do you need a license from the original author? If you do need a license, how do you figure out if an answer is close enough to some original work to require a license? How much effort can we expect a user of an LLM to put into searching for original sources? If you can't identify sources, can you use an LLM at all?
2) Is it even allowed to train an LLM on data without asking for permission?
3) Is prompting an LLM a creative act? Is ChatGPT just a tool like a typewriter? If you type a poem on a typewriter, no sane person would consider the typewriter the copyright holder. So shouldn't we consider the person prompting the LLM the author?
The first one asks if someone else than the „prompter“ should have copyright.
The second one asks about other people‘s copyright.
The third one is answered by case law, including the Monkey Selfie case. The wildlife photography setup is very much comparable to your typewriter there.
In this case TinyLetter was "written" by GPT4o with a LOT of prompting. Have you even read it? https://github.com/i365dev/LetterDrop/blob/main/docs/CDDR/ap...
As always, some random person in a tech forum thinks they have all the answers to non-trivial legal questions...
I mean, we haven't even talked about jurisdiction issues yet. US case law does not apply globally.
What exactly is the thesis you are trying to argue?
Quoting the judgement: "only works created by a human can be copyrighted under United States law, which excludes photographs and artwork created by animals or by machines without human intervention"
Clearly, the machine in question is responding to human prompts. The LLM didn't create this program on its own.
So I think these are still open issues.
And wouldn't have finished on its own. Sometimes even other models or chats with more fine tuned context just don't spot the mistakes within n iterations. The human needs to, quite annoyed I must say, take a closer look herself. "What did you LLM do and how does it work?" Then you specify what must be done or do it yourself because you can't remember the term which would make the LLM find the right symbols, and describing the term takes as long as fixing the issue yourself. This applies more to new kids on the block than to experienced devs, depending on the complexity of the subject, of course, but is relevant for both because the creation, the final product, belongs to the human, as does the LLM. My chat, my LLM, my copyright. If it ever became important, I'd raise an army against their lawyers.
The LLM is instructed by my prompts. I'm giving the directions. At some points, the LLM will dynamically update the weights based on my input, it's knowledge being all that is in the higher public domain, published human knowledge. My communication is being collected to my own, and others, future advantage, which would not be possible if we didn't use the LLM. The devs can't make it much further without the user. The devs couldn't make it anywhere without the training data. 'My LLM' is the current chat window, whatevers' coming out of it, I am responsible for that, not the company who created it, and if I am responsible, I have to own it, just like I own the things 'my child' creates until that child is ready to own it's responsibility itself.
Taken alone, it is concise, correct, and well-cited. It does lack a crux, though.
But in context, seeing the commenter's previous comment, there is an implied Cruz that is the opposite of the truth, since a reader assumes that any comment is implicitly in support of the commenter's previous comment, and in opposition to the proximate comment it is in reply to, unless otherwise indicated.
But there’s a non-zero chance LLMs won’t face a class action lawsuit.
Any copyright holder that can prove their material is a part of the training data could have the model taken down.
But again this will all hinge on the court’s definition of “fair use”.
That does not strike me as believable - do you really not have the list elsewhere, and does every provider who shuts down not give you the option to get your list out?
I've never had an email delivery company return any communication at all once they have decided you're bad. (0% spam report rate, 0.01% bounce rate)
Don't expect them to support a free service they decided to shutdown in anyway.
I strongly disagree. I’ve had the chance to speak with numerous deliverability folks who work at esp’s over the years and they’ve all for the most part been incredibly professional and helpful.
Am I responsible for backups ultimately? Absolutely. Will I trust Mailchimp in the future for my own projects? Not very likely.
> We're afraid the TinyLetter data is no longer available
could perfectly mean: the backups we keep for one year are encrypted in case of legal trouble, but we require a legal action internally before them to be worth reaching out.
If it makes you feel better, deliverability people will tell you a list that’s been sitting with no sends for a year or more quickly becomes worthless due to list rot (abandoned emails, expired domains, job switchers, people who forgot you exist and will mark spam/unsub, etc).
When you send to an old untouched list, it can tank your domain rep in Gmail since the algo sees tons of bounces/unsubscribes/negative signals. They basically assume you’re a spammer. So it probably would have been a PITA to warm that list again anyways. It’s shitty that gmail incentivizes bulk senders to be annoying and send a lot, but it is what it is.
> After that, you need to create a Cloudflare Worker as a notification service. The code is very simple, you can use the ChatGPT to generate the code.
It's a honest small business and the founder also has an interesting blog: https://buttondown.email/blog
That also means you can easily customize the code by changing the prompts. You can find the prompts in the CDDR file."
???????
Please clarify what ??????? means here? You’ll find us willing to hear out your point of view, but first you’ll have to provide it.
Personally, I found it unbelievable. The author think contribute should change the prompt instead of the code.. To my best knowledge, these kind of code generation are non deterministic. This make it impossible to audit for correctness.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL21oMWN6Y7PCqSwbwesD4...
The code generated is very hard to be maintained by human unless you're very knowledgeable and knows what specific things to change (since generally we only interact on framework level unless there's some specific requirements, like how the author proposed to "modify the prompt" instead of the generated code)
That said, I don't think that the so called "prompt based" cough cough engineering is viable at current state, or anytime soon.
Would be a huge nuisance to maintain.
Is the code bad? Sure.
Could I build this in 10 hours without an LLM having no experience with cloudflare workers and typescript? Probably not.
Could I build this in 10 hours with an LLM? Probably.
Whatever happened to "write code like it'll be maintained by an axe murderer?"[0]
Personally, I don't think the GUI's yet been invented which can reliably wrangle LLMs to those ends.
You would be surprised on how big corporations are running on not so elegant code and generating revenue all over.
I used to be more principled around code best practices and having things well written, but with the LLMs I just discovered that unless your in a very critical domain where performance or maintenability is a hard requirement, the LLMs with bad code just solve the problem and everyone can be happy.
I like elegant code, well written and easy to maintain; but for a long time the field of programming started to develop the pristine idea that the programming _was the end_ and not as a way to achieve something.
What’s the post author made was to bring it in a more latent way saying that you could use programming to achieve the same results but you do not need.
So the same prompt won't necessarily give the same result
It does not guarantee determinism, though, because of the nature of GPT4o's optimizations.
Are you using RoR?
You may want to look at https://github.com/knadh/listmonk for how to handle heavier loads. This is also a nice project used by Zerodha in India to send millions of newsletters on a daily basis.