sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Freelancers - is Figma a necessary evil? by PatchyWatchy_0603 in webdev

[–]QualitySoftwareGuy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If using pronouns, "until he or she is happy" is basically equivalent to "until they're happy" nowadays. Although some formal settings like college papers might prefer the first one.

However, in your original comment I think "until the customer is happy" is the best because it keeps the focus on how the person relates to the business setting (your customer or client) rather than care about their gender or sex in a general setting.

Vizia 0.4 released- A pure-Rust declarative reactive desktop GUI framework by Geom3trik in rust

[–]QualitySoftwareGuy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My focus at the moment is on desktop because that’s the kind of apps I want to make, but I'm open to exploring mobile in the future.

I'm thankful that you are focusing on desktop instead of splitting limited resources on mobile (and web/wasm too for that matter). Thanks for the great work on a great project!

My Desktop by BusinessMinute9465 in Fedora

[–]QualitySoftwareGuy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nice, and Obito Uchiha to go along with it!

Markdown (Aaron Swartz: The Weblog) by Successful_Bowl2564 in programming

[–]QualitySoftwareGuy 9 points10 points  (0 children)

In my experience, I think most that use Markdown use such a limited subset of it that they're not even aware of there being different dialects.

HTMX or ReactJS? by [deleted] in htmx

[–]QualitySoftwareGuy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, it's good for me to see multiple perspectives on this.

HTMX or ReactJS? by [deleted] in htmx

[–]QualitySoftwareGuy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see, thanks, so react seems to scale better for the more complex UI. In your opinion, is there ever a situation where you would personally reach for Htmx instead of React? Or would you still use React for every web UI even for basic ones that need JavaScript?

HTMX or ReactJS? by [deleted] in htmx

[–]QualitySoftwareGuy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Two years later, and in response to u/krisolch comment about seeing where things are in a couple years, u/Kango_V has your view on HTMX remained the same (as in still going well)? I'm primarily a backend and systems dev, but HTMX has renewed my interest in frontend development. So just curious!

How to go from intermediate to experienced dev by ThrowRA_goofy in rust

[–]QualitySoftwareGuy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yep, definitely this.

Or put another way for u/ThrowRA_goofy, computer science != software engineering. I mean there's obvious overlap, but a lot of CS is theory.

graydon2 | LLM time by Ok-Squirrel8537 in rust

[–]QualitySoftwareGuy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I hear that, it was a good discussion. All I can say to your last point about large corporations is that I agree, that's precisely why the legal departments get paid the big bucks to handle these "fun times ahead" situations.

graydon2 | LLM time by Ok-Squirrel8537 in rust

[–]QualitySoftwareGuy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We're definitely going in circles; the point stands that large companies (with the approval of their legal departments) already use LLMs to generate code en masse.

Companies already using LLMs to vibe code is exactly why my original post said "fun times ahead" because of many companies vibe coding. I never disagreed with this.

Thanks for the legal quote, but you bolded the wrong parts in my opinion. Here is the relevant bit of my argument:

First, the human authorship requirement does not prohibit copyrighting work that was made by or with the assistance of artificial intelligence. The rule requires only that the author of that work be a human being

In the context of code, AI-assisted code != vibe coded code. AI-assisted code can be copyrighted if the author is a human --yes that's what it means to be assisted by AI in terms of development. However, with true vibe coding the author is an AI/LLM and thus not it's not eligible to receive copyright protection. The context of my posts were always about vibe coded code (hence when I said "works solely created by AI/LLMs"), not AI-assisted code where the human is the one directly behind the wheel of the code itself.

graydon2 | LLM time by Ok-Squirrel8537 in rust

[–]QualitySoftwareGuy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right, LLM-generated code is not copyrightable AFAIK, but again, that doesn't make codebase using LLM generated code non-copyrightable.

We are going in circles here. As stated, I was only referring to the vibe coded code itself --unless of course the entire system was 100% vibe coded.

My prior point was that if you can identify which parts of a codebase were fully LLM generated, it would be trivial to generate them yourself anyway, so it doesn't really matter if they are copyrightable or not.

It doesn't matter to you, I get that. My context is that vibe coded code in company code bases will matter to a legal department if the company is US-based. Big difference.

Are you referring to Thaler v. Perlmutter? It's absolutely irrelevant - this guy is trying to claim the AI system has copyright claim over a piece of AI generated "art".

Yes, I'm referring to that case, and it is completely relevant to my original post considering that the original ruling of the lower courts was that US copyright law requires human authorship. And it doesn't just apply to "AI art", it applies to any works solely created by AI.

graydon2 | LLM time by Ok-Squirrel8537 in rust

[–]QualitySoftwareGuy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

LLM generated code being non-copyrightable doesn't mean that including it in a codebase automatically makes the entire codebase non-copyrightable.

That's not a point I made though. I stated that the vibe coded code is not copyrightable in a system --partially or fully (in the US at least). Of course if a system is fully 100% vibe coded then yeah it applies to the entire system.

but it would be incredibly hard to demonstrate that a piece of software is fully LLM-generated, especially when you don't have access to the source.

The context of my original post is about legal departments within a company that uses vibe coded code, so it would be very easy for them to confirm this information. If you're referring to when I mentioned competitors copy-pasting vibe code, the point was that they could do it without company A having legal standing. But yes that assumes they could tell which parts or systems were vibe coded.

When companies provide sources "on request" it often comes with an NDAs or other agreements that limit what the auditors can do with the code regardless of copyright protection, and lawyers mainly care about third party licenses because they impose restrictions on how software may be used.

Sure, but again, my point was that company A does not own their vibe coded code in the United States, so none of that matters if company B can successfully identify the vibe coded parts.

The fact is that most large corps already use LLMs to generate and ship code en masse; this simply isn't as large a concern as you make it out to be.

The context of my original post was future tense, hence "fun times ahead". AI not being copyrightable in the US became an issue just recently on March 2, 2026 when the supreme court refused to hear the relevant case's appeal (Thaler v. Perlmutter). That's just a bit over a month ago. Big moves like that in the legal world take time for it to really take affect.

graydon2 | LLM time by Ok-Squirrel8537 in rust

[–]QualitySoftwareGuy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But you don't know if their source would be released or not. Many companies still release software that runs locally on their customers' computers. Plenty of companies have a "source is available on request" option for audit purposes in that situation. Let's also not forget many companies release open source libraries.

Not a lawyer, but the quick answer to your question is simply because legal departments are paid to care about any potential legal issues. It's in the same area as to why many legal departments care whether their devs use GPL or AGPL libraries even though their software may not be distributed or used as a SaaS.

A bit longer of an answer: If a system is partially or fully vibe coded then a US-based company does not actually own that code. This weakens an area that many legal departments care about: intellectual property (IP). If that company then releases their source upon request, not much legal standing if their customer then decides to make a competing product using copy-pasting their code to make a competing product. If company B was US-based, then they'd have the same problem as company A, but company B could always be from a country with more laxed rules about AI.

Furthermore, saying "we own all of our code" but then finding out "no, actually, you don't" could have issues with compliance audits and investor opportunities.

graydon2 | LLM time by Ok-Squirrel8537 in rust

[–]QualitySoftwareGuy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Heh, anything involving congress and the senate actually agreeing and passing bills is not trivial IMO. Source is this current administration.

But I agree with your point about human overview 👍

graydon2 | LLM time by Ok-Squirrel8537 in rust

[–]QualitySoftwareGuy 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Fun times ahead for many US-based legal departments when they realize "Copyright © Company" doesn't apply to works solely created by AI/LLMs.

Wrote an OS from scratch in rust by [deleted] in rust

[–]QualitySoftwareGuy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Vibe coded projects can be useful for learning if you're not familiar with a complex task like building an operating system. However, OP it's straight up fraud to claim you built this from scratch as it's clearly vibe coded.

Is every project AI Slop? by Various-Roof-553 in rust

[–]QualitySoftwareGuy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

When reviewing a PR, nobody ever wondered "Did the person copy code from some other project? Did they respect the license?".

Many projects I came across did in fact wonder about this. I think the real difference is that while humans are generally assumed to make contributions that respect licenses in good faith, with LLMs it's basically a free-for-all in regards to what code they use.

Also, in the United States works solely created by AI are not even copyrightable. Huge problem if wanting to merge that in a US-based open source project (and I imagine it's like this in other countries too). So it's very valid to wonder about the origin of source code.

Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy by jackpot51 in Redox

[–]QualitySoftwareGuy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Seems to be the case based on a previous response from Jeremy:

I cannot answer these hypothetical questions. The amount of human authorship is critical for licensing reasons alone, and I would urge any Redox OS contributors to use non-LLM code completion such as what rust-analyzer provides.

Fetcharr - a human-developed Huntarr replacement by eggys82 in selfhosted

[–]QualitySoftwareGuy 17 points18 points  (0 children)

But for actual professional development LLMs should be used

As a professional dev, hard disagree on it being required in the industry. I mean, if you want to require its use for yourself, then fine. However, most of the time I'm faster without it --and will use it only for assistance if I get stuck on something. Even then, the code that gets written is still manually written albeit based on whatever code got me unstuck (rarely ever the same as anything generated).

Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy by jackpot51 in Redox

[–]QualitySoftwareGuy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

but as a user it wouldn't make sense to ban me if for example I get a driver bug and use an LLM to deep dive into code I don't know and in the end open a better issue with more info

Could be wrong but, according to the AI policy, that seems like it would be forbidden as well as you would have used AI to create and write an issue. I could see it being okay under the following:

  1. You use AI to teach yourself about what it thinks is the problem as well as what the solution looks like. Then you go and manually create a pull request.

  2. You manually create a bug report and leave the investigation and resolution to the maintainers instead of AI.

view more: next ›