[flagged]
Are you ok with that?
A blog post is not permission to reproduce code with small changes. Neither is posting it under an open source license which usually require attribution.
Absolutely not the case with other OS code posted online.
I think AI companies are just trying to ignore IP laws entirely, perhaps they’ll get away with it but there is bound to be a case where a small tool or game is 90% identical to a source reference at some point given the way these LLMs work.
Why would I do character design when Disney could just take it for free and leave me SOL?
It’s what lets authors make money from a book without other people ripping them off, to cite one example.
and your own prediction, from your own brain, is doing something quite similar i would imagine.
The mechanism behind how it works is irrelevant. The results can be judged on its own. People used to judge chess engines as tho they are just merely searching and trying every possibility, and it's not "really playing chess", like humans' intuitions. And yet, by just doing searching and almost brute force, it produces a better chess game than any humans can.
And LLM are still in the early days. It's only been around for less than 3 years.
> .. but if they don't, it doesn't matter because they could be functionally better than humans!
> .. but if they're not, it's just because they aren't there yet.
Presumably we could add an extra clause, something like ".. but if they won't get there, they're super good as it stands!"
I would agree with that too, I just think that the progressive weakening comes across as kinda weak.
well I'm glad you solved human cognition.
I am slightly astonished someone makes these sorts of comments in 2025. AI has been remarkably useful for many many things across many industries; I’m curious what you think
This is really a statement of faith more than a statement of fact. I think you and many others believe this to be true without much concrete evidence. For work, I help companies adopt AI driven solutions. Sometimes it makes things a little better, sometimes it makes things worse. I've yet to see a project use LLMs in the transformative way that many AI optimists put forward. Don't get me wrong, I find tools like Claude and ChatGPT to be fascinating and useful for looking up all kinds of information. I can't really say if we're just scratching the surface or if we've dug ourselves into rut with the present state of LLMs. The firsthand evidence I've seen and verified points more to the latter, but things are changing fast in this area. I'm excited to see what's around the corner.
Luckily, I’m using AI tools to do things that I am capable of doing without AI so I can tell which path I’m going down pretty quickly.
So, letting experts augment their skills with AI is something that can work depending on the specific task. The nice thing is that an expert is able to see errors pretty quickly and determine that this task is a mismatch for the AI.
The problem is that AI is being sold as a magic solution so people never need to develop expertise in the first place. Blind trust in a system that is often confidently incorrect will lead to problems
On the other hand, with all the money flooded into AI, all the hardware that's been produced and bought, it's reignited the entire AI industry (that mostly died in the 80's) and there is a chance for innovation beyond LLMs.
When you realize that language and reasoning are in fact two separate skills, only one of which an LLMs is good at, they make much more sense.
Until now, language skill and reasoning skill have been correlated - people with greater skill using language are usually better skilled at reasoning. Put another way, we typically discount poorly written material regardless of it's actual content.
LLMs turn this on its head - great at language, poor at reasoning. So the crutch, the heuristic, we used before no longer applies. We MUST recognize that language ability and reasoning ability are now independent.