wonderingwanderer

I think your argument is a little outdated because libre software has come a long way in the past few decades. I couldn’t imagine not being able to turn a manuscript into a publishable product with FOSS software in the state they are today.

If your argument is that it would take longer because someone has to relearn the interface, that’s just because they’re used to one and not the other. If it’s because they prefer features that the other doesn’t have, that’s just preference but easily circumvented.

The only other way I could see there being a difference is because of patented features, but that’s a discussion that’s already been had in this thread. And it’s not about open-source developers being in any way worse than closed-source developers.

Wow, imagine an .ml trying so hard to go to bat for corporations and proprietary software. Hilarious…

The great thing about open source is that it’s generally developed by people who use it. Proprietary software is just developed by people who get paid by someone who’s just doing it to make a profit…

Does it do bitmaps or vector images? Or both?

I don’t know why any company with hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on commercial LLM APIs wouldn’t just build and self-host their own LLM fine-tuned on data relevant to their work…

More programmers for tech co-ops and open-source projects.

I mean sure, it won’t cover these people’s mortgages or probably even healthcare. That sucks, it really does. But let’s starve big tech of the expertise that they so obviously disdain, and contribute our time and energy to building better alternatives.

Is krita closer to gimp or inkscape? How does it compare/contrast to that one?

All I could find is some statistical overviews without much detail, and a more list of recent patents which are all related to AI.

Is there a specific feature that you wish was in the others? I don’t really understand the difference between UX and UI

Ugh, nothing “intuitive” should ever be patentable. Can you imagine if “horizontally-ruled paper” was patented? Or “handles on cooking pans,” “shirts with two sleeves,” or anything of that sort?

Like, why should anyone have to avoid an obvious feature just because someone else did it first? It’s insane.

Also, FOSS projects and non-profits should be exempted from patent restrictions.

Why is that? Is it just the user interface? Performance? Or are they missing features that you need?

If the bot is anti-LLM and anti-Big Tech, it’s not the worst thing it could be peddling…

How do they compare, in your experience?

Have you tried Gimp and Inkscape?

Hey, we all make mistakes sometimes. It takes integrity and strength to admit when we have and then correct course.

I’d say at least 80% of people on the internet are more likely to dig their heels in and double down on the bit…

By all means, utilize the parental controls on your children’s devices to keep them away from harmful content.

But keep the government out of people’s personal devices, and stop attacking the basic concepts of anonymity, privacy, and data security.

Congratulations, you’re now the first user I’ve removed a tag from. For some reason, I must’ve thought you were shilling for russia a few months ago, but this comment proves I had you tagged wrong.

I don’t think you honestly care, but if I had a biscuit to give you, I would give you a biscuit.

Here’s everybody’s reminder that every WWII vet (at least from the Allied forces) was antifa.

Hey bella ciao, bella ciao, bella ciao ciao ciao

If you’re not interested, then why are you still here saying the same thing over and over again?

It’s perfectly fine if someone wants to make a claim that “we should apply the same argument across both situations,” and then I would give my reasoning as to why different arguments apply. But that’s not what happened.

What happened was, I gave an argument applied to the situation being discussed. Someone else tried to apply my argument to a different situation, in order to argue against a point that I didn’t make. And ever since that point, this whole conversation has been going in circles in which you and that other commenter keep arguing as if I’m saying something that I never said, and I keep stating repeatedly that it’s not what I said.

And if you read back through this chain, I never said it. I even said I can understand the other point of view, and would probably even agree with it, if that’s the conversation we were having, and I said we could even have that conversation, but that the sudden change of topic as an attempt to “score points” against me is not a good faith argumentation style.

Is it a problem if commercial LLMs are trained on GPL code, and then used by closed-source developers to generate proprietary code which potentially contains open-source snippets? Yes, I’ve never denied that. But that’s not what this conversation has been about.

From the start, it’s been about open-source developers using LLMs to write open-source code, when those LLMs are potentially trained on closed-source code and may generate snippets closely resembling closed-source code.

Those are fundamentally different situations, and if you can’t see that then I can break it down for you in minute detail. But the point I made about the one thing was never meant to apply to the other; and arguing against the point I made as if it was meant to apply to a different situation is a bad faith argument.

Disagreeing because applying the argument consistently results in an undesirable outcome isn’t objectionable.

I’m not objecting to disagreement, I’m objecting to the attempt to apply my argument to a different situation that it wasn’t meant for, and then going on as if that’s even remotely what I was saying.

That’s not “applying the argument consistently”, it’s removing context, overgeneralizing the argument, and applying a strawman based on a twisted version of it.

Open-source developers using AI trained on closed-source code and closed-source developers using AI trained on open-source code are two different issues. My point was only intended to apply to the former, because that’s what we were talking about. Trying to apply what I said to the former is a distortion of my argument, and not the argument I was making.

And to try to conflate the two is to be allergic to nuance, which is honestly just typical and unsurprising, but if that’s the case then I’m done wasting my time on this conversation.