‘You should relax.’

‘No YOU should relax, about how I’ll never relax! HA! Owned! Calmer than you are!!!’

Dolt.

For a Shapiro script? We’re gonna find out how much lipstick you can put on a pig.

Kiana Mai had made some haha-this-sucks posts about how some of her best work is forever locked behind an NDA.

Which is fucking bullshit.

I don’t feel much need for a more detailed or formal argument, on that point. I don’t need to fly a diagonal flag and declare workers must etc., in order to say, copyright doesn’t mean keeping a fucking cartoon secret… forever.

I will say copyright only exists to provide the public with new works. Businesses are entitled to most of the money and some control. Not all. And if you don’t want the money, we still get the result, assholes. The art belongs to us. Copyright is only an incentive for there to be more of it. It is our gift to you. It is not an exchange. Give us what is ours, and either take the money or don’t.

Have fun dying mad about it. The rest of us will be over here doing stuff anyway, while you seethe.

The tech isn’t going anywhere. It already runs on your phone - like, on your phone. No one could stop you. The part that does the scary thing is small and fast and will only get stronger. Most people are going to use it for utterly unremarkable tasks, or the sort of above-board goals they never found time for.

Insisting they’re not in any way responsible for what they make, or that it is utterly disqualfied from being creative, personal, distinct, or expressive… that’s only gonna go over well with like-minded curmudgeons. Grumble away, I guess.

Also I disagree with that label. I’m taking the radical position that… it’s probably fine. It largely works, and people can do stuff with it. Staying mad about it is poorly justified and bad for your health. It’s just a chatbot. Make your peace.

Meanwhile the insistence that ‘AI [thing] isn’t [thing]!’ gets shakier and fuzzier, but no less loudly confident. An AI cartoon isn’t a drawing, sure. But it is an image conveying someone’s idea. AI music is still a song, by any definition. It’s usually well within western music theory. AI reverse engineering has demonstrably produced byte-for-byte identical results, and some folks still insist it doesn’t count, somehow. What is anyone supposed to say to that? It’s an absurd denial framed like philosophy. A counter-poke and saying ‘relax’ do not make someone a delusional cultist.

You have to be able to understand disagreement in terms besides an opposite extreme.

This is already a clean-room reimplementation, not a binary decomp.

That’s still not what clean room means.

Y’all will bend over inside-out to pretend these models need a terabyte of linear algebra just to copy-paste a text file they obviously did not have.

If only some technology could could summarize huge quantities of text, or modify code the user doesn’t fully understand.

Bemoaning capitalism is certainly one response to an aggressively libre / gratis clone of infamously greedy software.

The bubble will pop any day now. God willing, every leading company swiftly goes under. And then, people will continue using this technology, because long-term maintainability is such an absurdly high-level concern that it obviously won’t stop anyone from exploiting this witchcraft. This is just a thing computers can do now. It will continue to improve as people fuck with how networks are designed and trained, even if none of them are throwing around three-comma budgets.

Businesses won’t need you to understand and support their processes, because they’re not gonna hire you, they’ll just make the software themselves. It’ll be a fragile mess, much like their databases. And much like their databases, so long as billing works and they keep making spoons or whatever, apparently that’s good enough.

I give it another year.

It’s already like ‘I’m as vegan as they come, but you wanna go get some brisket?’

Yeah, that’s a bit much.

Why.

We’ve mechanized this process. Doing it repeatedly, and quickly, is what that looks like.

This isn’t a decomp searching for exact compiler output. Function-for-function means, there is a Gaussian blur filter, and it responds to the same shortcut and settings. It’s not bit-for-bit identical. Is that supposed to take a month, by itself? Why wouldn’t this move very quickly, once the most important functions are good enough?

Yes you plainly did. “Sorry, not buying that” is just brushing aside that they say they did exactly what you asked for.

What is so unthinkable about producing compatibility with a file format that has a test suite? Or cloning any particular feature from a high-level description and a screenshot of its dialog?

I look forward to people dropping the performative ingroup signalling before saying anything positive about this technology.

Argumentum ad nuh uh is somehow worse than all the sea lions saying your definition wouldn’t count even if you believed it.

This project is weeks old. I dunno what detailed writeup you expect to exist. But the project’s Github page says: “Implemented from public specs and observed behaviour only. No proprietary code, shaders or assets.”

There’s no secret sauce in Photoshop. Image editors have been done. Every individual feature is a tractable problem. You can now buy your way out of those, in bulk.

Right, because clean room means you’ve never seen any code in your life.

People - spicy autocomplete was not going to derive C from first principles. Neural networks are example-based. The model still obviously never saw Photoshop’s source code, because that shit’s not on Github.

Clean room implementation would be taking the spec, API calls, etc. & writing the code that implements them from scratch.

Which they did.

This is not a decomp. They gave the tool all of the available specs, and the expected behavior, and let it run. They had a suite of test PSD files but no Adobe software.

Please explain to these other commenters how and why that counts.

Goalposts moved from ‘it’s only copying this exact project’ to ‘any conceptually similar project can be reworked until it’s identical and that doesn’t count either.’

The MW2 decomps are from the binary - but there’s obviously none of its source code in the training data. Not that you seem to care, suddenly. You’ve made your position unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless.

New clone of a whole-ass software suite? They must be copy-pasting a specific libre project, doesn’t count. Oh it’s from spec documents, and structured completely differently? Well the other libre implementation is in the training data, doesn’t count. Oh it also cloned cloud applications with no binaries or alternatives? I do believe there are more video effects packages, does! not! count!

Meanwhile.

These schmucks have a one-to-one copy of the latest Photoshop, permissively licensed, ready to use. It did not exist last month.

Whining about how it got made won’t change a goddamn thing.

get fucked

Et tu?

God the reply is SO RUDE.

Do you think there’s a Libre Modern Warfare 2? Because the same tool did the same shit to Modern Warfare 2. Show me the open-source repositories that simply copied from.

It’s already in a functional state. Eat now, braggart. If they achieve their goals within the month, clap the dust from their hands, and walk away with the job done, how is that less impressive than bumbling along for an entire year, to accomplish the same thing?