What a super helpful comment, I'm sure elementary school children all work exactly like you do.

"The costs of switching to Linux are indeed low, and switching away are comparably low as you don't have to pay the entrance fee to Linux or the exit fee from it."

As long as the value of time is zero, that may be true. If only entry and exit fees are all that matter. I guess hardware is free too.

What does it mean to design a system to run a GUI package manager? What systems are designed to "run it" and which ones aren't?

"...and can learn a new system very quickly."
That system is not merely an OS and package manager that you want to make up claims for, it's EVERYTHING that must be used to get an assignment done, and it's NOT merely a kid that needs to do it, it's all the teachers as well, plus the parents to some extent. Then next year you'll change your mind and there's a new piece of the OS that a system needs to be "designed" to run and it starts all over.

It's not whether kids "will be fine", it's about focusing the effort on kids learning what society wants them to learn, not just what you do. I'm interested in kids learning the curriculum, not your preferred OS.

"..."qualified immunity" not would not be possible to do the job without i.t"
Talk about a disqualifying comment.

There is an immense amount of government experience.

"...it's a job just like any one other and that it should be."

Yes, as though that supports your absurd point of view.

I like the "at this point" part, an open admission that this used to be OK with you. And which of "our basic freedoms" are being "destroyed" here?

"Everyone is pulling out of the US EV market..."

Except they are not, dream on MAGA.

AI "anything" is worse than human equivalent, AI has no values. It's faster, so what? It's easy to go fast when it can be wrong.

The overwhelming majority of features that go into making a human mind what it is do NOT have analogs in LLMs nor do AI companies have any interest in making that happen. Instead, AI is a billionaires' rush to own the one interesting thing that has recently developed. Claiming that AI is about to produce super-human intelligence is really a monstrous insult to everyone's intelligence, it is taking a huge shit on our integrity.

Worse than that, sociopaths are people lacking important aspects of what makes human minds what they are and what makes them worth emulating. Every LLM ever is a worse sociopath than has ever existed in human form. LLMs, by design, lack EVERY redeeming feature of human thought. This is why they appeal to billionaires, they can be a tool to exploit people far better than any sociopath ever could. AI companies do not view this as a liability, it is a feature.

Modern software increasingly does not depend on traditional compilers. How terrified will you be when there is no compiler at all?

"This is the tool you rely on to make your code."

Tell that to Python users. Do not worry though, there aren't many of those!

"...then that's just being naive."

Naive is thinking this problem hasn't existed for decades. It's been well understood before you even went to school. It's NOT an AI issue.

It is intuitively NOT copyright infringement because when a human does exactly the same it is not. The law was clearly intended for it not to be.

"So if LLM-generated code retains GPL copyright..."

LLM-generated code would be LLM-generated, it may be governed by copyright but it would not because any copyright were "retained". The code is newly generated, by definition.

Your assertion that "a lot of the training data is probably GPL code" doesn't mean anything. What would matter is if there is theft of copyrighted work. And LLMs may be able to use copyrighted works for training, just like humans can. It would seem to be fair use for LLMs if it is fair use for humans. This has not been tested, although one could not tell that by /. comments.

Existing law presumes there is a big difference between learning and copying. With AI that has become different and the law is not equipped to deal with it.

"...if the LLM stole too much from its training data..."too much" may not be a lot..."

Any amount of stealing is too much, but LLMs cannot and do not steal in and of themselves even if they are tasked to steal. LLMs learn and then apply that learning, just as humans do. When humans do that, it is not called stealing. It is called ownership of what you've learned.

Current law is simply inadequate, there will no longer be a distinction between what is learned and what is copied when they can be essentially the same. Simply avoiding AI-generated code may not be enough, relying on copyright itself becomes a problem when copyright is no longer helpful.

LOL I posted the exact same thing. Walking is most obvious, when you realize that this entire topic is worthless. Mankind has known these things forever.

The fact that we can talk is remarkable, but other animals can too.

The area that makes me most aware of this, musical performance. When a musician performs in a group, his mind is engaged with the group, not the skills. The body does the work, generally without the mind even being aware of it. The music comes out, how that happens seems a mystery.

"Driving is the perfect example"

Driving isn't even "the perfect example", walking is. How the brain works is better understood than presented here, to an embarrassing extent. We've known longer than any of us have been alive that the brain learns and no longer needs to be actively focused on skills in order to perform them. Anyone who plays a musical instrument is acutely aware of this.