chromanoid

I guess the main reason behind this move is platform capitalism. It's an easy way to cut off grassroots internet.

OpenRewrite is quite nice and has a great collection of recipes for migrating, e.g. from javax to jakarta: https://docs.openrewrite.org/recipes/java/migrate

There are some quirks you have to work around for big projects since the free tooling has some limitations.

Great writeup :)

It's like this https://geek-and-poke.com/geekandpoke/2017/8/13/just-happene... but actually true, which is really bad for mental health :D

This is different. It's nonstop, personalized, and built to keep you hooked. It's not about freaking out, just about setting some boundaries like we do with anything that can go overboard.

I think China is on the right track here. https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/kid-mode-guidelines/ While I don't like the privacy implications, I like the screen time limits China establishes. Social media and internet must be treated with much care.

It's like a candy store open 24/7 - completely free and always within reach. Even adults have a hard time to resist TikTok and YT Shorts and the like.

The Internet has changed since I was a kid browsing through GeoCities webrings and the Yahoo Directory while searching with AltaVista. Generations of technology enthusiasts have to acknowledge that the internet of the past is no more and cannot be brought to our children as such.

The temptations we faced then were nothing compared to what children today have to resist.

Just as many countries regulate advertisements aimed at minors, we need to start regulating screen time for kids - before they get pulled into the vortex of influencers and endlessly accessible, mentally corrosive entertainment.

What do you mean by "demand"?

https://bewerbung.com/lebenslauf-ohne-bewerbungsfoto/

> Eine Bewerbung ohne Foto zu verschicken, ist in den vergangenen Jahren zu einem regelrechten Trend geworden. Bei vielen Personalern genießen Lebensläufe ohne Bewerbungsfoto daher eine hohe Akzeptanz [...]

No, panprotopsychism and panpsychism are also very hot contenders. Considering the lack of any examples where computation itself yields measurable effects on reality why should it be the case for consciousness? It's wishful thinking of computer enthusiasts if you ask me.

Seems to me like wishful thinking. This would require an interface to connect to and there we are most probably in the physical realm again (what we can perceive as such).

I agree and the radiation/physical effect is in my opinion the only possibility a normal computer may somehow be able to cause some kind of consciousness.

I don't see how computation itself can be a plausible cause here. The physical representation of the computation might be the cause, but the computation itself is not substrate-independent in its possible effect. That is again my point.

I think you misunderstood my point. A simulation is never the actual simulated phenomenon. When you understand consciousness as a "physical" phenomenon (e.g. as in most forms of panprotopsychism), believing in being able to create it by computation is like believing in being able to generate gravity by computation.

Just wanted to point out that I absolutely share your view here. I would like to add that the concept of virtualization and the required representation of computation makes substrate-independent consciousness rather absurd.

To me the only explanation for consciousness I find appealing is panprotopsychism.

May still only yield a philosophical zombie. You can simulate gravity but never move something with its simulation.

Stability, sustainability, EU legislation compliance and taking care of your individual problems. If it goes well, the companies will grow with you and don't outgrow you.

I think there is a growing Digital Mittelstand in Germany already. I myself work for such a company. We have some strong VC-backed competition. So far the company, self-financed, fares quite well.

I think the author misses a plethora of B2B markets when coming up with examples. There Mittelstand can be a very stable, (if desired) regional long time partner.

Some things that can happen: Product gets canned. Customers want on premise in their data center. Usage spikes are too extreme and serverless is simply the cheapest option.

I would always recommend "serverless" monolith first with the option to develop with mocks locally/offline. That's imo the best risk/effort ratio.

Premature optimization may hit them hard. Overengineering is imo usually the bigger technical debt and a huge upfront cost as well. Well-thought out plans tend to become a sunken cost fallacy. Making room for changes is hard enough in XP like ways of working. When you have to tell your manager that half a year of careful plans and engineering can be thrown away, because of the new requirements, which emerge from late entry to market, you look like a clown. Plans and complexity usually introduce more risk than less.

When I see Maschinensturm against AI this always comes to my mind "Manifesto against Labour" https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/krisis-group-manifes... on the other hand it is probably easier to tear down AI advancements than the oligarchy that controls its use.

> But using an algorithm (even a very complex one) to take a bit of everyone's work and redistribute is for free without crediting or compensating them does not benefit authors.

I am not sure about that. As long as they also can benefit from it, it just accelerates creation of new things.

> I hate analogies but if I write banking software and send 0.000000001% of every transaction to my account, none of the individuals thusly affected probably care that much but I am still going to prison.

As long as the amount goes to everybody, I don't think this "tax" would be a problem. Human beings can only survive in a collective after all.

> Umm, I think theft on a civilization-level scale is sufficient.

As long as everybody can also benefit from it, I see it as some kind of collective knowledge sharing.

As you stated in the paragraphs before unless the wealth distribution changes, LLMs may lead to an escalating imbalance, unless the models are shared for free as soon as a critical mass of authors is involved, regardless of who owns the assets.

I am curious why you are so critical especially when looking at code.

At least for Java there are search engines to look for code that call libraries etc. Models could probably be trained on free code and then be fed with the results of these search engines on demand even through the client who calls the LLM:

Client -> LLM -> Client automation API -> Code search on client machine to fill context -> Code generation w/o model that is trained on the code that was found through the code search, but merely used as context

Even if they only feed code into it, that is freely given, I think the difference in quality of output would approach the current quality and better over time, especially when using RAG techniques like the above.

Companies can also buy code for feeding the model after all. So beside the injustice you directly experience right now over your own code probably being fed into AI models, do you fear/despise anything more than that from LLMs?

> > AFAIK under EU law only blatant copies are an infringement

> Laws generally don't encode what is right but a compromise between the state's interests, lobbyists and the general population making enough ruckus if too unsatisfied.

of course, but I actually think that this is the correct moral stand. Patenting algorithms is like patenting thoughts.

> I don't know about you but when I wanna know how to use a particular function, I don't go looking through random GH repos to see how other people use it, I go to the docs.

I always look into sources. Usually I look into the code I want to call first. But this is probably also because I mainly use Java.

So if I read your AGPL code and implement something similar in another programming language after also reading other implementations of the algorithm, is that something I have to attribute you for? Isn't code just an executable documentation of an algorithm? Especially if the algorithm is well known, I don't see any injustice here - "Die Gedanken sind frei". If I copy your code via copy and paste, then this is an infringement, but just retelling a similar story should not be affected by copyright.

Algorithms should not be subject to copyright IMO. If you publish code, AFAIK under EU law only blatant copies are an infringement. In case of art, copyright is enforceable anyway, at least not in any different form than before AI.

Yes, current AIs just remix their training data in a rather direct way. But in the end how different is that to how humans create? I would suggest we should embrace this new way of creating things while finding laws to empower all creators and not only those who were hired by deep pockets.

I believe you think in too short time frames. In 70 years this becomes a futile discussion. AI is a way to directly benefit from the explosion of free content that the next decades will bring. The only way to counter this in an ethical way, is to establish some kind of enforced liberation for AI models, otherwise as you say, only the rich will profit from this.

Honestly, I only thought about the models, assuming that work that uses them, will also inevitably be incorporated into them. But maybe it is a good idea to actually include the produced works. It could create a nice incentive for rich corps to pay artists to create something AI free / copyleft free.

If we could extract correct attribution and even licensing out of work that was produced with AI, I don't think it would help that much. I would even assume that especially in this case the rich would profit the most. They wouldn't care having to pay thousands of artists for the pixels they provided to their AI generated blockbuster movie. It would effectively exclude the poor from using AI for compliance reasons. Or even worse rich corps monopolize the training data and then they can create content practically for free, while indies cannot use AI because they would have to pay traditional prices or give the rich corps money for indirectly using their training data.

I agree, but it's derivative work that infringes almost indiscriminately on all publicly available cultural goods and can be very useful while doing so. That's why I think copyleft is somewhat a fitting consequence.

Why do you think the rich get richer when operating an AI is a price competition and training new models gives only a short competitive advantage? I would hope that for each individual there opens an ocean of opportunities that is sustained by all humans that came before and poured their bucket of knowledge into it.

I am not sure if profits are easy to gather if all professional users can rent hardware instead of renting the service. In the end the users would actually profit from the model, not the provider (who competes with other providers of the same open source model). And here I am not sure if we can see AI as some kind of cybernetic enhancement that allows to execute ideas on the shoulders of humanity instead of just a scammy way to resell already present content.

Copyright is just not prepared for AI. Training with copyrighted material could become "officialy legal" under copyleft terms, at least when the amount of training material exceeds a certain threshold.

Maybe enforcing open sourcing the models is the best route to go. At some point everything worthwhile ever created will be processed. Models can be seen as the processed, collective cultural output of humanity. It seems fair to me to force publishing the models in the vein of some kind of copyleft clause.

I assume that there is a prompt that asks the LLM to generate its thoughts. This prompt is probably in English.