And what in particular is now novel or unique to the general 'issue' you mention?

Most companies use OpenSource in one way or the other.

Nonetheless, a company like MS has probably already build visualizers purely commercially (see excel) or/and is absolutly able to write it themselfs.

I am not sure what you are talking about.

If I release a novel visualization library on github under some open source license I want it to be attributed to me. I don't want some specialized LLM to be lifting and offering the same visualization concepts to unnamed corporates for a hefty fee without me ever even knowing about it and these corporates pretending they don't know where that concept is coming from.

It is you choice whether you think that is a problem and how "novel" it is. Theft after all has a very long history.

Everything you described been possible since the dawn of intellectual property. Just replace LLM with "person".

Furthermore, it isn't theft to learn from others' work and reproduce similar qualities.

Possible is not the same as admissible.

Good to know that the prevailing commercial tech culture now sees plagiarism and stealing ideas without attribution as the modern way of doing business and hopes that dressing things up under some algorithmic veil will hide the act.

I guess the pit of moral decline has no bottom. The consolation is that theft has never been the road to wealth. Once the plundering is over the only thing that is left is a wasteland.

It seems that Microsoft has finally found a way to kill the open source "cancer".

I'm afraid I'm just unclear on exactly what part of this you argue is crossing a moral line.

I.e. what is being stolen without attribution? I'm genuinely not getting what you mean in this specific case.

Limited visualization grammar means that any non-trivial visualization request will be lifting a particular solution, more or less verbatim.

I don't see how it's possible to show that the solution is lifted by the LLL as opposed to a arrived at by the LLM.

It seems to me that such solutions are soon to be within the set potentially constructed by an LLM.

As they say, people are unwilling to understand something if their monetary gain depends on not understanding it.

Let me break it down for you. If I ask for a visualization that squares the circle and there is one repo that has an example of squaring the circle, the LLM will "arrive" at a way of squaring the circle.

That's not really answering my question.

If (1) an LLM is able to arrive at solutions in the same class of difficulty as the solution for the target problem and (2) it's not possible to establish the provenance of the solution actually offered by the LLM, then what's the argument for assuming that the solution is based on IP rather than constructive reasoning?

thats too many ifs.

Retrain the LLM without access to the repo data. Ask for the same solution. Enjoy the hallucination. Provenance established.

By the way - your haste in ascribing bad motives to those disagreeing with you rather turned me off continuing this conversation.

Pivollama

I mean there are plenty of examples in the wild left and right.

Have you ever seen basic db optimization? Alone in my companies people were just using stuff wrong.

Performance and Architecture are a after thought in our industry. A normal developer doesn't think about it.

There was one query in my company which was running in one region slower than in another one and there was also an explain statment available. No one looked at the explain statement and thought "huh why does this simple select use so much memory". People weretrying to see why the regions themselfs were different not what the problem with the query was.

yes but besides a somehow snarky comment, it doesn't make sense from a company perspective.

This wasn't done to have mone to donate to Elixir but for revenue.

And besides that, you don't even know if they do

Big corporations have a habit of promoting open source, then gullible developers produce exceptional work from which said big corporations make millions or billions without paying a penny back.

Then developers learn they can't pay bills with exposure tokens and employment doesn't offer the lifestyle they had hoped for.

But there is no worry, they get replaced by next cohort of gullibles believing in open source.

What I am trying to say, it should be illegal for big corporations to use open source without paying royalties to all contributors.

Its still not very easy to understand if this is now good or not.

3-5k requests per second is not that much and highly depends on what you actually do.

A lot of things can be done just with nginx. nginx is very fast.

I don’t recall the payload size, but these were all POSTs w/ decent sized bodies, it took about 60 Kinesis shards to avoid writethroughputexceeded.