• 6nk06@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    4 days ago

    Oh good. They can show us how it’s done by patching open-source projects for example. Right? That way we will see that they are not full of shit.

    Where are the patches? They have trained on millions of open-source projects after all. It should be easy. Show us.

    • JustinTheGM@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      That’s an interesting point, and leads to a reasonable argument that if an AI is trained on a given open source codebase, developers should have free access to use that AI to improve said codebase. I wonder whether future license models might include such clauses.

    • ryannathans@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      3 days ago

      Are you going to spend your tokens on open source projects? Show us how generous you are.

      • 6nk06@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 days ago

        I’m not the one trying to prove anything, and I think it’s all bullshit. I’m waiting for your proof though. Even with a free open-source black box.

            • ryannathans@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              At work, the software is not open source.

              I would use it for contributions to open source projects but I do not pay for any AI subscriptions, and I can’t use my employee account for copilot enterprise for non-work projects.

              Every week for the last year or so I have been testing various copilot models against customer reported software defects and it’s seriously at a point now where with a single prompt Gemini pro 2.5 is solving the entire defect with unit tests. Some need no changes in review and are good to go.

              As an open source maintainer of a large project I have noticed a huge uptick in PRs which has created a larger review workload, I’m almost certain these are due to LLMs. Quality of a typical PR has not decreased since LLMs have become available and I am thus far very glad

              If I were to speculate I’d guess the huge increase in context windows has made the tools viable, models like GPT5 are garbage on any sizable code bases