I'm still around.. I'm just not writing here
rachelbythebay.com
rachelbythebay.com
> I run into problems, figure out solutions that don't seem to be documented anywhere else, and then I don't post about them.
I don't understand this. Presumably you've only been able to build software your entire career because, when you hit a wall, usually someone online had too and shared the solution.This feels like throwing a sandwich in the trash rather than let a hungry person eat it.
The thing of it is, if one writes and it's primarily feeding bots which have the time to try and try again and the minority who are holding their tongue the right way who do get access - one is not really writing for the whole net any more.
Not everyone is only copy/pasting from SO/Google/AI to know how to build stuff.
It's not just that. Back in the day, StackOverflow was also the place where besides some copy-paste-ready lines of code you would also get some detailed explanation.
Sure, you had to deal with SO's awful moderation policies...
More like: giving up on making artisanal sandwiches to leave on a counter for free, after realizing the surge in people grabbing them aren't hungry, they're running off to resell them in sandwich shops.
In this case being swallowed by LLM is fine.
Some people, however, chase the raise in status and credits. So they'd feel really pissed at giving it away.
For some reason the first time I tapped the link it didn't go directly to the article, which confused me. Subsequent times it goes straight through.
I do have to agree, but I have a different reason for writing less.
I just enjoy doing stuff that ships. That tends to take up a lot of my bandwidth.
I couldn't care any less about whether or not someone (or something) uses my code (that's why it's MIT-licensed). I'm also not particularly interested in being credited for stuff (as long as I am not the target of a lawyerpult).
I've enjoyed using an LLM, and plan to do a lot more of it. I even let it write a bunch of stuff. It's maybe not stuff that has my "imprimatur," but that's fine. People seem to understand it better.
but I will disagree with the rationale
I want enable and empower everyone, even though it includes bad actors, because I know it includes good actors
I believe that on balance, humans, the world, the future, are all good
I reject misanthropy and pessimism
On one hand, sure: the FAANGS and other AI companies are scraping the web, including my miniscule portion of the web and I haven't been paid nor credited, and that's a bummer.
On the other hand: I get use super cool and crazy powerful tools (OpenAI and other companies' large language models) either for free or for crazy cheap: the $20/month ChatGPT plus subscription is a steal for the productivity boost i'm getting and for all the questions it's answering to me.
So... Yeah, I get the author's position, but at the same time that's just one side of that.
I mean, OpenAI couldn't guarantee that someone's data was not used for training, even though he had the "don't train on my data" setting turned on. I still don't understand what that means. And Anthropic probably does a similar thing, right? Did they share details how they derive from our data for training purposes?
I think this is slightly selfish. If you write and your stuff goes into LLM's, that's the best gift you can give to humanity.
That's your opinion, and there's nothing wrong with that.
However, there are a lot of people who have a very different opinion, and there's nothing wrong with that.