←back to thread

174 points Philpax | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.212s | source
Show context
codingwagie ◴[] No.43719845[source]
I just used o3 to design a distributed scheduler that scales to 1M+ sxchedules a day. It was perfect, and did better than two weeks of thought around the best way to build this.
replies(8): >>43719906 #>>43720086 #>>43720092 #>>43721143 #>>43721297 #>>43722293 #>>43723047 #>>43727685 #
csto12 ◴[] No.43719906[source]
You just asked it to design or implement?

If o3 can design it, that means it’s using open source schedulers as reference. Did you think about opening up a few open source projects to see how they were doing things in those two weeks you were designing?

replies(2): >>43720057 #>>43720965 #
codingwagie ◴[] No.43720965[source]
why would I do that kind of research if it can identify the problem I am trying to solve, and spit out the exact solution. also, it was a rough implementation adapted to my exact tech stack
replies(5): >>43721294 #>>43721501 #>>43721779 #>>43721872 #>>43723076 #
kazinator ◴[] No.43721294[source]
So you could stick your own copyright notice on the result, for one thing.
replies(1): >>43721543 #
ben_w ◴[] No.43721543[source]
What's the point holding copyright on a new technical solution, to a problem that can be solved by anyone asking an existing AI, trained on last year's internet, independently of your new copyright?
replies(3): >>43722070 #>>43722129 #>>43723450 #
cmsj ◴[] No.43723450[source]
There is one very specific risk worth mentioning: AI code is a potentially existential crisis for Open Source.

An ecosystem that depends on copyright can't exist if its codebase is overrun by un-copyrightable code.

replies(2): >>43723613 #>>43723734 #
1. kazinator ◴[] No.43723734[source]
It's not an existential crisis. You just don't merge radioactive contributions.

If it sneaks in under your watchful radar, the damage control won't be fun though.