42
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by mkhoury@lemmy.ca to c/technology@beehaw.org

Public code repositories like Github are currently being beset by a flood of LLM-generated contributions. It’s becoming a bit of a problem and is one of the facets of the Great Flood the web is currently experiencing.

What does it look like when we are able to use LLMs to handle the flood of contributions? What happens when we’re able to screen and adopt PRs effectively with little to no human intervention?

I use the Voice audiobook app to listen to my DRM-free books. In this app, there’s a configuration setting for auto-rewind. If you pause the book, when you resume, it will rewind by X seconds. I didn’t like that feature, I wanted the amount of seconds to rewind to be based on how long it has been since I’ve paused. So if I resume within a minute, no rewind; within 5 minutes, 10 second rewind; more than that would be 30 seconds.

I can do this because I’m part of a small percentage of people who can clone a repo for an Android app, modify it, rebuild it and push it to my phone. But I don’t want this power to be constrained to a priesthood who know the secret language of coding. I want everyone to be able to do stuff like that.

Imagine a world in which, as I use a specific piece of software, I can request modifications to its behaviour to an LLM-augmented system. That system will pull the open source code, make the necessary modifications (following the project’s contribution guidelines), build it and reload it on my device. Then I can use it and test it, and fix any problems that come along. That modification can then be uploaded to my own repo and made publicly available for anyone else who wants it, or it could even be pushed as a PR to the original system who could scan it for usefulness, alignment, UX, etc., modify it if needed, and then merge it to the main branch.

This wonderful world of personal and communal computing would be unimaginable in a closed source world. No closed source system will accept an external AI to come in and read/modify it at will. This is why open source is more important than ever.

We need to build a Software Commons so that we can give everyone the ability to adapt their digital lives to their liking. So that these intimate, private devices to which we entrust most of our attention, these things which have great effects on our cognitive and emotional functions, remain ours in a real sense. And the way that we do this is to create the tools and processes to allow anyone to make modifications to their software by simply expressing that intent.

And what does communal software development look like? Let’s explore the space of social consensus mechanisms so we can find those that drive the creation of software which promote culture, connection, compassion and empathy.

I want to see the promise of community made by the 90’s web survive the FAANG+ Megacorp Baronies and flourish into a great digital metropolis. The web can still get free to be weird, we just have to make it happen together.

[-] mkhoury@lemmy.ca 25 points 8 months ago

Isn't it the opposite then? Since your windows will have vertical scrolls, it makes sense to tile them horizontally in order to maximize vertical space for each window, imo.

[-] mkhoury@lemmy.ca 21 points 10 months ago

There's lots they can do...

  • cheaper prices (by lowering the % of rent-seeking),
  • better pay distribution for creators (Especially so that I pay to support the shows I watch rather than a global pool),
  • interoperability (to allow new businesses which provide frontends to multiple streaming services),
  • social (clipping and sharing, group watching, etc)
  • more equal promotion of shows/movies (instead of based on royalty rates)
[-] mkhoury@lemmy.ca 21 points 10 months ago

I'm not so sure that's true. What if normalizing and removing friction from piracy gets to the point where the streaming services have to react by providing better services and better payouts?

[-] mkhoury@lemmy.ca 23 points 10 months ago

That's the point, though. Spotify is rigged specifically so that they don't have to pay small artists. Spotify splits the pot with the Big Three and everyone else can go fuck themselves. I would much rather my monthly payment go toward the artists I actually listen to. Instead, most of a monthly payment goes to the most played artists-- which Spotify rigs to be whoever nets them the most money (low royalty artists, high dividends for Spotify and the Big Three who are highly invested in it)

[-] mkhoury@lemmy.ca 47 points 10 months ago

What Spotify does affects the entire music market. Why should you worry about their income? Because Spotify's strategy makes it harder and harder for musicians to have the income to keep on making music. If you care about having music to listen to, you should care about this. Also, Spotify and music is just one example of the overall exploitation of workers. If you don't stand for artists when it's their livelihood at stake, why should anyone stand up for your rights when it's your livelihood at stake?

[-] mkhoury@lemmy.ca 14 points 10 months ago

It does more than that, it magnifies, feeds and perpetuates them. It's not just simple exposition.

[-] mkhoury@lemmy.ca 20 points 10 months ago

I've been using LLMs pretty extensively in a professional capacity and with the proper grounding work it becomes very useful and reliable.

LLMs on their own is not the world changing tech, LLMs+grounding (what is now being called a Cognitive Architecture), that's the world changing tech. So while LLMs can be vulnerable to bullshitting, there is a lot of work around them that can qualitatively change their performance.

[-] mkhoury@lemmy.ca 15 points 11 months ago

There's lots of alternate, free and open source syncing solutions. I use syncthing myself.

[-] mkhoury@lemmy.ca 12 points 11 months ago

But the main result is achieved anyway, right? The picture that the system tried to download did not make it into the training set.

[-] mkhoury@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 year ago

That's always been the case, though, imo. People had to make time for art. They had to go to galleries, see plays and listen to music. To me it's about the fair promotion of art, and the ability for the art enjoyer to find art that they themselves enjoy rather than what some business model requires of them, and the ability for art creators to find a niche and to be able to work on their art as much as they would want to.

[-] mkhoury@lemmy.ca 36 points 1 year ago

I don't see how one invalidates the other. Amazon's predatory practices have killed off the competition and created a sizable price gap. Not everyone has the luxury of voting with their money.

[-] mkhoury@lemmy.ca 20 points 1 year ago

Wow, none of the things you mentioned makes me want to use it.

Thanks for the explanation though!

view more: next ›

mkhoury

joined 2 years ago