Live Stoner Chat Live Stoner Chat - Oct-Dec '25

[Frankthetank]

 

[Son of Hobbes]

After reading your bio it left me thinking, “This guy’s fucking amazing.”
Seriously though that was a nice write up. Please take lots of photos of the samples to share.

I know, I was like "God damn, they made me sound actually kind of cool."

Little do they know...

 

[Frankthetank]

 

[Frankthetank]

 

[Frankthetank]

I know, I was like "God damn, they made me sound actually kind of cool."

Little do they know...

 

[Frankthetank]

 

[iWumbo]

Good morning my friend How’d the wings turn out? Smoke out the kitchen?

Set off the smoke alarms but it turned out good

 

[Frankthetank]

Set off the smoke alarms but it turned out good

Yep… usually does

 

[Frankthetank]

 

[Mike20132]

I respectfully disagree. I know of at least one remote worker in my community who has a full time job finalizing computer programming which was originally drafted by AI, and it is my understanding that a great deal if not the majority of programming will soon be done this way - initial drafting is far faster, and with expert editing, using AI gets the job done cheaper. And getting the job done cheaper (with fewer workers) is the reason for the massive recent investmenting in AI infrastructure and development. Nobody is expecting to make big bucks making fake videos of cute cats, it is all about further de-jobification of the economy. It is not going to go well for workers.

I suppose the question is if you believe the AI is coming up with this code all by itself. It simply isn't. There is nothing at all "Intelligent" about it.

We'll have to see if it survives all the copyright infringement lawsuits, I suppose. And when companies do not publish their AI "generated" code the discovery part of these cases could prove pretty embarrassing. I do not believe you can legally copyright something you did not create, and that is exactly what AI gives you: Stuff someone else created in the first place.

If you or I spend time developing source code, we have the code in its entirety, along with editing history, and can claim that the code is indeed original. Someone trying to pretend otherwise could have a rough time in a lawsuit. Consider the old case of Phil Katz stealing the source code for ARC for his ZIP software back in the day (yes, that ZIP software everyone uses every day - think "windows compressed folders"). When it went to court, and Katz had to produce the source code, it had the same typos in the code comments, in the same exact place as the code developed by SEA. I would expect something similar to happen when chunks of AI "generated" code matches, byte for byte, someone's open source project.

As an interesting aside, Katz won in the court of public opinion because he handled it better from a business perspective. It did not seem to matter that he blatantly stole someone else's work. I am not sure if what happened in court was little more than an undisclosed settlement; I never really looked into it. I was still a young adult at the time and was not paying much attention to it. And I must say, when news broke of Katz drinking himself to death in a hotel room, I had a hard time mustering much in the way of sympathy.

People are dumping billions into this nonsense because they have to find ways to appease the shareholders. The industry is quite literally running out of ways to convince shareholders that they have the "next big thing coming." I think deep down even the greedy tech giants can see that this will not pan out in the long run. And in the meantime it is wreaking havoc on the environment. I really cannot wait for it to die.

In the furtherance of transparency, I say this from the perspective of a professional software engineer.

Also, if you or someone you know uses Gmail, they may wish to read the current terms of service. It seems Google is actually scanning your emails for AI training. Ain't that great?

See: