I can't help but feeling like if we're just going to be talking about copyright, we've jumped the shark. [LWN.net]

I can't help but feeling like if we're just going to be talking about copyright, we've jumped the shark.

Posted Apr 15, 2026 12:17 UTC (Wed) by pizza (subscriber, #46)
In reply to: I can't help but feeling like if we're just going to be talking about copyright, we've jumped the shark. by QxDEADBEEF
Parent article: Vibe-coded ext4 for OpenBSD

> So I believe the issue is not with the AI tools but with the instructions that we provide to them (e.g. prompts, skills, methodology) and the datasets that are trained.

So... "everyone is using/creating the tools wrong".

But it's totally not the tools themselves.

Sure.

to post comments

I can't help but feeling like if we're just going to be talking about copyright, we've jumped the shark.

Posted Apr 16, 2026 6:27 UTC (Thu) by QxDEADBEEF (guest, #175948) [Link]

I didn't used the correct wording.

"So I believe the issue is not only with the AI tools..."

My point is that like any other tool there is the correct way of using it and the wrong one.
Unfortunately in case of the AI tools the ambiguity of the user's input does not result to an error (e.g. like using a programming language wrongly which results to compiler error) but instead the AI makes guesses which results to wrong solutions.

I can't help but feeling like if we're just going to be talking about copyright, we've jumped the shark.

Posted Apr 17, 2026 12:51 UTC (Fri) by cpitrat (subscriber, #116459) [Link] (2 responses)

> So... "everyone is using/creating the tools wrong".

It's not a very charitable reading of what was said.

Understandably, people are learning how to use AI properly (in the same way that people had to learn how to use programming languages properly). And at the same time, AI is evolving (in the same way that programming languages evolved, though less transparently: you don't have a new version of a language or a new language. At best you have a new model, but you also get changes you're bot aware if like prompt evolving, integration with tools changing, etc ...)

It will take time for clarifying what "using AI properly on task X" means and in the meantime, there are conflicting views and arguably, yes, nobody is using it correctly.

I can't help but feeling like if we're just going to be talking about copyright, we've jumped the shark.

Posted Apr 17, 2026 13:21 UTC (Fri) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (1 responses)

> Understandably, people are learning how to use AI properly

Are they really, though?

They are using these LLM tools in the way their vendors suggest, ie "let the LLM do all the [hard] thinking/work/etc"

I can't help but feeling like if we're just going to be talking about copyright, we've jumped the shark.

Posted Apr 18, 2026 14:01 UTC (Sat) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]

Users, vendors, others,... I don't think "who is to blame" matters much in the grand scheme of things. Experimentation is inevitable and that's a good thing, it's the only way we learn:

https://www.ted.com/talks/tim_harford_trial_error_and_the...

Sure, some people involved with AI will come out richer (gold rush/shovels) while others will be poorer but that's hopefully just a "1st world problem".

I'm concerned about duplication and un-debuggable technical debt. And rising costs of energy at a time when we've reached "peak oil" and only decades away from "peak fossil/dictator fuel". But it doesn't really matter who's to blame because as long as something is more or less legal then there will always be some people doing it. There is no "People should just...". Every sentence beginning like this is very ignorant of human nature.

Taxes are a good tool in situations like this, often better than bans. For instance: make data centers pay more for electricity than households. Tariffs work too - unless you ask an LLM to write them :-D