257
"Code was never the hard part" is an insult to all programmers
(blog.senko.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2026
257 points (94.8% liked)
Technology
87047 readers
3634 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
By expanding the ability to program to people without the knowledge of how that code works in the first place, it's naive to expect that most uses of AI in programming will be informed uses by senior developers able to recognize errors and security flaws.
Such a pro-AI position also ignores the enormous amount of theft that these tools are built on.
Ain't that the biggest oxymoron you've seen today.
They are not given the ability to program, per se, in my opinion. They are doing something else.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment though. Not sure if you're referring to the code output when you said "that code", or some other code. Please let me know if I got it wrong.
Or, less likely, it could be that person knows and just doesn't care. I certainly don't because I believe intellectual property is bullshit.
It's one thing for individuals (particularly those without the means of paying) to pirate content that its original creators have already been compensated for and now exists to milk money for an IP holder for a century; it's another matter entirely when AI companies with multi-billion dollar valuations scour the internet for content to include in their models to then profit from without permission from or compensation to the millions of people whose work they depend on.
The problem in there is corporations. AI is just the means of the dickery, not the cause.
I would also go further and say the root cause is capitalism, and that someone being able to eat or be housed should not be based on whether or not their art has met the criteria for corporate purchase. But I digress.
Yeah that's the thing: I don't believe it's wrong to profit from people's content without their permission, because I don't believe they own that content after they share it with humanity and I absolutely don't believe they should get to enforce that "ownership" via state violence. Everyone should get to use anything they want in derivative works, whether for profit or not. The fact that this could plausibly affect people's livelihoods (but IMO wouldn't; if there were significant profits in IP "theft" corporations would already be doing it) is a failure of capitalism and frankly not the reproducer's business.
As an artist that see his work opportunities reduced by the IP theft, stfu, and maybe evenn go kys.
The entire AI industry is built on IP theft; even if you don't believe in IP ownership, companies like OpenAI and Anthropic rely on their ability to scrape the internet for content, with only largest of publishers having the resources to sue for anything in return.
So long as copyright is being enforced at the individual level for consumers, large corporations shouldn't be allowed to get away with infringing on it for profit.
Sure, but my conclusion from that isn't "IP law should be enforced on the big corporations too;" it's "IP law should be abolished and also down with capitalism." Why should I want an unjust law to be enforced even more vigorously?
One of the big reasons IP law exists as it was to encourage people to not hide innovations and keep them secret to themselves. If anything you (not you specifically as a person) spend time and resources to create can be trivially taken away from you if people know about it, you then either have to keep it secret or you simply have no incentive to make anything new. Now if your argument is that current IP law has been totally perverted and abused to extreme levels and should be completely redone, you'll get no argument from me. Just killing IP laws entirely would pretty much break our current society. Maybe out of that chaos would come something better, but make no mistake, shit would be fucked in the meantime.
I'm baffled I just downvoted a comment saying "intellectual property is bullshit". There's a first time for everything I guess. And yes it is bullshit but gosh, what a weird place to take that stance.
I mean, a key element of the anti-AI movement is that AI "steals" art, but I fundamentally believe in that art (and ideas) can't be owned and therefore can't be stolen. Ditto for code or what have you.
They CAN be owned. Particularly art.
And I say this even when I'm anti-copyright and pro-copyleft, but even then I don't want to lose my means of work and subsistence and my moral rights.
Also, much of that gets even worse when AI gets trained with works that you didn't even published yet, but that a hidden background AI process scraped in the platform you used to backup, plan or talk about that works. I'm talking out of experience.
AI training is data theft not IP theft
It can be both...
Yeah, it can be both, like, if you want to argue that in our current capitalist society people need to be compensated fairly for their work, I'll hear that argument, but I don't think it's the best or most accurate framing. I think it's just as obnoxious reddit made a deal with google to train on my (and everyone else's) comments throughout the website as I do the possibility it was trained on my artwork, and I'm not alone in that.
The data theft is another story, but there's clearly an IP theft angle to anti-AI arguments, as seen in the other person response.
His other comment applies just as easily to to stolen medical images, like this woman's , as it does more creative works. It feels violating either way. Virtually no one is worried about Mickey Mouse appearing in data sets, but lots of people do feel wronged when their emails are trained on without permission or compensation, even though they're not really IPs.