> where you actually have to entice your employees not to leave
Yes, by offering them things like equity in the company. This practice throws all that out the window though, in essence unilaterally renegotiating the terms of employment. When the leadership team can be acquired independently of the company then these employees can be left with nothing. Sometimes the corp doing the acquisition will throw a bone to the dregs left, but that does not appear to be legally required. It's exploitative and unjust.
Why do you think it's not copyrightable? It absolutely is under current US law. OP copied the interfaces, which is perfectly legal, and then defined their own implementations. Even if they are working with an LLM, that process of interactive prompting establishes authorship.
This hasn't yet been decided, as I pointed out above. The courts have indicated that push button LLM output is not copyrightable, but haven't said anything about larger orchestrations of multiple agents operating over hours or days to produce something with direction from a human.
Given that photographs are copyrightable, I wouldn't hold my breath on projects like this being deemed ineligible for copyright.
> In the copyright law in the United States, such copyright may exist when the materials in the compilation (or "collective work") are selected, coordinated, or arranged creatively such that a new work is produced. Copyright does not exist when content is compiled without creativity, such as in the production of a telephone directory. In the case of compilation copyright, the compiler does not receive copyright in the underlying material, but only in the selection, coordination, or arrangement of that material.
All my experience seeing orgs ship real production code with the assistance of AI over months/many-thousands-of-commits shows that the skill not only lies in what context you choose to provide in the first place (product and technical specifications, design guidelines, prompting process with the model(s)), but also in how to effectively review and test all of it, which is still done with human direction throughout. This is why people with no experience in coding can't do with AI what an industry veteran with 20 years shipping to production can.
In any case, I think existing reading of copyright law will be sufficient to say that large AI-driven software projects are a process of orchestration and also of curation in selecting what actually gets committed (or, if commit-by-default is enabled, then what to revert). This may not always be true in the future, though, as capabilities increase...one part of me thinks you could just do random stuff like "Make me an excel except every cell is a powerpoint presentation" and a good enough AI would reason through and produce something without further input. But I think in most cases, folks have a real set of requirements in mind, and get all of them into the AI through a process of iteration in various ways. I think that's real work that requires skill and, in many cases, creativity, at least in the sense that someone else walking up to the same tool and prompting on their own would produce a very different output than you'd see if you asked the same person to retry the same project.
I don't think we disagree that much. But the repo in question had basically no human input, at least no substantial one. It will be interesting where the courts will decide the boundary lies though.
Why? It's easy and predictable. Generate a key with a spend cap plus short expiry and you're set. I much prefer that to having to fork over my email with an OAuth flow.
It's a workstation card targeted specifically at inference. It's also their only late gen "AI GPU" arch available, baring the release of the D270 this thread is about.
I don't see the connection. Pricing may effect their long term prospects, but I don't see any evidence these issues are being caused by a shortage of metered / allocated resources. They should have access to as much Azure compute as necessary.
> They should have access to as much Azure compute as necessary.
"Should" doesn't imply "does". GitHub is competing with all of the other Microsoft products that need Azure compute, in addition to Microsoft customers. If a customer is willing to buy the compute at a higher margin than the internal chargeback rate, it's definitely not a given that GitHub is getting that compute over the customer. It's hunger games for compute everywhere right now.
Sure, that is possible, but there's still no evidence that compute scarcity is the issue here. It seems a stretch to assume it must be the pricing model when there are a multitude of challenges presented by this kind of ramp.
More like I have done the work, we all have. Then it was stolen and sold back to us, with the openly stated goal of devaluing our labor. I can understand a bit of entitlement here.
reply