>  I run into problems, figure out solutions that don't seem to be documented anywhere else, and then I don't post about them.

This feels like throwing a sandwich in the trash rather than let a hungry person eat it.

The thing of it is, if one writes and it's primarily feeding bots which have the time to try and try again and the minority who are holding their tongue the right way who do get access - one is not really writing for the whole net any more.

Not everyone is only copy/pasting from SO/Google/AI to know how to build stuff.

It's not just that. Back in the day, StackOverflow was also the place where besides some copy-paste-ready lines of code you would also get some detailed explanation.

Sure, you had to deal with SO's awful moderation policies...

More like: giving up on making artisanal sandwiches to leave on a counter for free, after realizing the surge in people grabbing them aren't hungry, they're running off to resell them in sandwich shops.

In this case being swallowed by LLM is fine.

Some people, however, chase the raise in status and credits. So they'd feel really pissed at giving it away.

For some reason the first time I tapped the link it didn't go directly to the article, which confused me. Subsequent times it goes straight through.

I do have to agree, but I have a different reason for writing less.

I just enjoy doing stuff that ships. That tends to take up a lot of my bandwidth.

I couldn't care any less about whether or not someone (or something) uses my code (that's why it's MIT-licensed). I'm also not particularly interested in being credited for stuff (as long as I am not the target of a lawyerpult).

I've enjoyed using an LLM, and plan to do a lot more of it. I even let it write a bunch of stuff. It's maybe not stuff that has my "imprimatur," but that's fine. People seem to understand it better.

but I will disagree with the rationale

I want enable and empower everyone, even though it includes bad actors, because I know it includes good actors

I believe that on balance, humans, the world, the future, are all good

I reject misanthropy and pessimism

I mean, OpenAI couldn't guarantee that someone's data was not used for training, even though he had the "don't train on my data" setting turned on. I still don't understand what that means. And Anthropic probably does a similar thing, right? Did they share details how they derive from our data for training purposes?

I'll continue to blog because my audience today is the same as my audience then: humans. Unless and until humanity is destroyed by AI, my audience remains.

I'm certainly not happy about AI vendors profiting on intellectual property theft. This is not a new phenomenon: see YouTube, for example. YouTube did not steal from me personally but did still from many artists, and ultimately, unfortunately, the corporations who fund the artists caved to YouTube, which should have been sued out of existence.

Anyway, I cannot personally eliminate crime and corruption in the world. The criminals are not going to stop me from blogging. I think that's letting them win, because then they become the sole source of information in the world. If you read my blog, you can depend on the fact that my blog posts were written by a human.

The only thing that might stop me from blogging would be the accusation that I use AI to write. I haven't received such an accusation yet, but I've seen plenty of examples of false, ridiculous accusations, based on the flimsiest of evidence, applied even to writing that predates LLMs. It drives me nuts, because LLMs were trained on human writing, with the purpose of emulating human writing, so "sounds like an LLM" is more or less the same as "sounds like a human."

I think this is slightly selfish. If you write and your stuff goes into LLM's, that's the best gift you can give to humanity.

That's your opinion, and there's nothing wrong with that.

However, there are a lot of people who have a very different opinion, and there's nothing wrong with that.

In addition to being selfish to the point of self-detriment, most such people also have an overinflated ego. (Before the mods get their knickers in a twist, I am not referring to any person in particular.) They put themselves over their community, country, and the world, so much so that they themselves will lose out in the long run.

There may exist one in a billion people who may objectively carry the opinion, but even they won't be doing anyone justice if they come in the way of the progress of AI which will ultimately overtake them too.

> You speak as if the future of this tech is settled fact, but it isn't. All anyone has is speculation.

In retrospect, you don't seem to have any clear argument whatsoever, just handwaving, posturing, followed by denying rather than strengthing your own point. Selfishness remains the succinct explanation.

My point is simple: nobody can know with certainty what the future of the tech will look like or how it will end up being used. Everybody is speculating. That some speculate differently than others doesn't imply any sort of personality defect with them.

I'd take it further and assert that when a person must resort to personal attacks rather than debating the point (whatever that point may be), the implication is that the attacker's position weak.

> You have presented no real counterargument. You have not presented an alternate future.

Counterargument to what? A future that is an alternate to what? None of these things have anything to do with the point I'm making here.

You seem to be wanting to engage in a discussion about something other than what I brought up, and accuse me not engaging in that discussion. I confess, I am not. It's not relevant to my point.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Remember: you are almost certainly unexceptional except in a small niche, and big companies can hire other talented people. So if talented people don't contribute to the public, most of it only the small individuals lose out.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Put it this way: I've been pretty pissed off at "helping bad people" with my freely given information since roughly the summer of 2022. It's all been downhill from there in terms of giving a shit about doing this sort of thing.

That's maybe not "obvious", as society trains people only to think in terms of "money equals value", but it's not very hard to figure out either.

As a simple example: people tend to focus on "new tech gadgets", but the remarkable lack of effort put into making existing stuff better (like Linux UX) simply by employing known things provides lots of opportunity.

On one hand, sure: the FAANGS and other AI companies are scraping the web, including my miniscule portion of the web and I haven't been paid nor credited, and that's a bummer.

On the other hand: I get use super cool and crazy powerful tools (OpenAI and other companies' large language models) either for free or for crazy cheap: the $20/month ChatGPT plus subscription is a steal for the productivity boost i'm getting and for all the questions it's answering to me.

So... Yeah, I get the author's position, but at the same time that's just one side of that.