• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Tech Thread

StormChaserBH said:
We get a weekly memo with info on the projects that are getting attention at that level... Big variety but often specific processes (tools or generating documentation, marketing, or other meta-products) where time saved can be measured against already known averages, or on my end some dev tasks like code maintenance analysis, initial code review to catch the big stuff and reduce time that seniors spend on reviews, validate against standards, etc. Still a long time, and more than one leap in capability, to come before it would replace anything but a percentage of your junior devs, but I'm sure it's affecting hiring projections. To me right now it's more like just another tool we can use to be more productive like every other technological advance has been, though with more noise about it, for sure. I mean, I used to code in Assembler and debug with a kernel debugger terminal and a serial cable; people were scared then that the move to higher-level languages and design-level tooling would mean they wouldn't need programmers anymore. I'm more worried that these AI Tech Bros are going to crash the market and I have to wait longer to retire than I plan to, than I am that AI can replace the value I bring.
Click to expand...

mmmmyeah when I get back in Jan I'm going to try using it to generate unit tests for a bunch of classes that don't have any...but I'm not expecting the output to be anything more than a starting point tbh
 
Preston said:
And btw there is such a disconnect on the perceived value of AI between the tech nerds and the normal humans. The tech nerds that I speak to almost unanimously go nuts over it because for how they use it, it has made them an infinitely better coder and completely changed the game for them like nothing else they've ever seen. But I'm not sure they use it for anything else or care much about other uses.
Click to expand...

It's usefulness scales up with your expertise in the subject you're using it to do work on. If you don't know enough to be able to fix it's hallucinations, the quality of your work is going to be horrific. It's a force multiplier, that's it.
 
axlsalinger said:

View: https://x.com/Rainmaker1973/status/2003103234198515751?s=20
Click to expand...

This doesn’t address the biggest risk which is ppl using likenesses to facilitate crimes.

If criminal aren’t a deterrent then privacy infringement won’t be.

This could also be really messy. How would it get applies to twins? Or complete strangers who happen to look alike?

In all likelihood this would end up being a tool used by rich people to enforce petty things against kids, kind of like Metallica / Napster.
 
mbow30 said:
This doesn’t address the biggest risk which is ppl using likenesses to facilitate crimes.

If criminal aren’t a deterrent then privacy infringement won’t be.
Click to expand...

Sure, but we already have laws about crimes. Yeah, someone who is cool breaking those laws is likely cool breaking other laws, not a lot you can do there. The intent here is to ensure that people own their own data, which is deeply important in whatever the fuck this world appears to be turning into, and your example actually provides a decent window into why:

mbow30 said:
In all likelihood this would end up being a tool used by rich people to enforce petty things against kids, kind of like Metallica / Napster.
Click to expand...

The same laws that Metallica used are very commonly used in my industry by commercial photographers when protecting their work. I've personally used the Canadian version of them to win a settlement a few years ago from one of the largest brokerages in the country that hired me to shoot a luxury property listing and then without permission re used those images for a bunch of marketing.

I don't think this would be any different. Would it benefit Disney or whoever the fuck else? Yeah, but that's just how IP works. If you've spent decades creating IP, you have more to protect. But anyone who creates or owns any commercially viable IP benefits from that type of protection too though, especially small creators.
 
MindzEye said:
Sure, but we already have laws about crimes. Yeah, someone who is cool breaking those laws is likely cool breaking other laws, not a lot you can do there. The intent here is to ensure that people own their own data, which is deeply important in whatever the fuck this world appears to be turning into, and your example actually provides a decent window into why:



The same laws that Metallica used are very commonly used in my industry by commercial photographers when protecting their work. I've personally used the Canadian version of them to win a settlement a few years ago from one of the largest brokerages in the country that hired me to shoot a luxury property listing and then without permission re used those images for a bunch of marketing.

I don't think this would be any different. Would it benefit Disney or whoever the fuck else? Yeah, but that's just how IP works. If you've spent decades creating IP, you have more to protect. But anyone who creates or owns any commercially viable IP benefits from that type of protection too though, especially small creators.
Click to expand...
Claiming ip in your face is a Legal quagmire with all sorts of holes and ambiguities. And It’s not going to deter the actual, real, big issue with deepfakes etc.
 
mbow30 said:
Claiming ip in your face is a Legal quagmire with all sorts of holes and ambiguities. And It’s not going to deter the actual, real, big issue with deepfakes etc.
Click to expand...

I mean, I disagree that the real big issue is deep fakes. It's the definition and ownership of your data. Way, way, way bigger structural issue. Dropping likeness rights into your existing pot of copyright protections seems like a pretty small, common sense thing to me. Deep faking is a criminal issue, and we already have a bag of digital crimes statutes to add that to.

A lot of the quagmires, holes, and ambiguities are already dealt in IP protection acts for the most part. Can you prove it was your likeness that was used, did the other party do it to benefit commercially, okay here's your compensation. Do they maybe need to look into streamlining the ability of law enforcement to punish for image fraud (deep faking) or similar? Sure. But that strikes me as shit that already overlaps philosophically with things like fraud, libel/slander, revenge porn, etc depending on how it's used and just needs those other laws updated to manage it better.
 
MindzEye said:
I mean, I disagree that the real big issue is deep fakes. It's the definition and ownership of your data. Way, way, way bigger structural issue. Dropping likeness rights into your existing pot of copyright protections seems like a pretty small, common sense thing to me. Deep faking is a criminal issue, and we already have a bag of digital crimes statutes to add that to.

A lot of the quagmires, holes, and ambiguities are already dealt in IP protection acts for the most part. Can you prove it was your likeness that was used, did the other party do it to benefit commercially, okay here's your compensation. Do they maybe need to look into streamlining the ability of law enforcement to punish for image fraud (deep faking) or similar? Sure. But that strikes me as shit that already overlaps philosophically with things like fraud, libel/slander, revenge porn, etc depending on how it's used and just needs those other laws updated to manage it better.
Click to expand...
What does "IP" stand for here in your discussion? (I suspect it doesn't stand for "internet protocol.")
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top