Rispondo ipoteticamente - non è che ci conosciamo - al post di Cory Doctorow ( @pluralistic) di qualche giorno fa. L'ho ritenuto offensivo e ingiusto, arrogante e immaturo.
Spiego qui perché, con i riferimenti del caso (spiace, solo in italiano, ma puoi usare una AI per tradurlo):
Rispondo ipoteticamente - non è che ci conosciamo - al post di Cory Doctorow ( @pluralistic) di qualche giorno fa. L'ho ritenuto offensivo e ingiusto, arrogante e immaturo.
Spiego qui perché, con i riferimenti del caso (spiace, solo in italiano, ma puoi usare una AI per tradurlo):
Heard today: We need to use LLMs to write code faster. We need to use LLMs to generate user stories faster.
My take on this: you can do that or you can look for the underlying issues. More content and more code will not save you. Someone has to read, understand and maintain this.
To say it with the words of @pluralistic "Code is a liability". The same goes for me with content aka user stories. The longer they are, the more likely they won't be read and contain conflicting points.
“AI can make mistakes” might as well be the slogan of our era. Even boosters admit that you need to spin the vibe code slot machine a few times to get a jackpot.
An employee with that degree of consistency would be fired.
So how do we redirect some of that unlimited grace from machines to humans?
“AI can make mistakes” might as well be the slogan of our era. Even boosters admit that you need to spin the vibe code slot machine a few times to get a jackpot.
An employee with that degree of consistency would be fired.
So how do we redirect some of that unlimited grace from machines to humans?
I was shocked that a very progressive colleague (a university professor, younger than me, and incidentally USian) had never heard of the environmental impact of LLMs nor of the fact that LLMs trample copyrights. All they knew was the bit about LLMs making things up. They said they themself use LLMs to "help with writing," and seemed to want me to assure them that that was ethical, "setting aside the environment and copyright." I responded honestly that I couldn't "set those aside." #LLM
I was shocked that a very progressive colleague (a university professor, younger than me, and incidentally USian) had never heard of the environmental impact of LLMs nor of the fact that LLMs trample copyrights. All they knew was the bit about LLMs making things up. They said they themself use LLMs to "help with writing," and seemed to want me to assure them that that was ethical, "setting aside the environment and copyright." I responded honestly that I couldn't "set those aside." #LLM
Heard today: We need to use LLMs to write code faster. We need to use LLMs to generate user stories faster.
My take on this: you can do that or you can look for the underlying issues. More content and more code will not save you. Someone has to read, understand and maintain this.
To say it with the words of @pluralistic "Code is a liability". The same goes for me with content aka user stories. The longer they are, the more likely they won't be read and contain conflicting points.
Mit KI (LLM) erzeugte Logos sind nicht schutzfähig, wenn kein menschlicher wertschöpfender Prozess existiert. Prompting reicht dafür nicht.
AG München, Endurteil v. 13.02.2026 – 142 C 9786/25
https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/Y-300-Z-BECKRS-B-2026-N-1513?hl=true
> "Dem Kläger stehen die geltend gemachten Ansprüche aus § 97 Abs. 1 UrhG nicht zu. Bei den streitgegenständlichen Erzeugnissen handelt es sich nicht um nach § 2 Abs. 1 Nr. 4, Abs. 2 UrhG urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke der angewandten Kunst."
Tja 🤷
Auch die anderen Begründungen sollte man sich mal gut durchlesen. Sehr spannend für Kreative vs. AI-Prompter.
Mit KI (LLM) erzeugte Logos sind nicht schutzfähig, wenn kein menschlicher wertschöpfender Prozess existiert. Prompting reicht dafür nicht.
AG München, Endurteil v. 13.02.2026 – 142 C 9786/25
https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/Y-300-Z-BECKRS-B-2026-N-1513?hl=true
> "Dem Kläger stehen die geltend gemachten Ansprüche aus § 97 Abs. 1 UrhG nicht zu. Bei den streitgegenständlichen Erzeugnissen handelt es sich nicht um nach § 2 Abs. 1 Nr. 4, Abs. 2 UrhG urheberrechtlich geschützte Werke der angewandten Kunst."
Tja 🤷
Auch die anderen Begründungen sollte man sich mal gut durchlesen. Sehr spannend für Kreative vs. AI-Prompter.
