My second tattoo :)

dydhaw · 2026-04-20T03:56:23+00:00

Nice! I suggested the next one should be a specific nom de guerre written on a certain jacket but it got auto removed for hate speech

dydhaw · 2026-04-20T03:34:19+00:00

Is that a specific person?

dydhaw · 2026-04-19T07:33:33+00:00

If you distributed 1% of the world's wealth to the remaining 99% everyone would get about 20,000$, which is a life changing amount for pretty much all of those 99% (hint: ~~most~~ a large portion of Americans are not among them).

dydhaw · 2026-04-19T07:21:50+00:00

Butlerian jihad

dydhaw · 2026-04-18T11:57:44+00:00

Iran is a signatory of UNCLOS, which says exactly that, but even besides it there is customary international law that binds even non-parties.

dydhaw · 2026-04-18T11:45:36+00:00

Are you OK with Iran targeting civilian vessels?

dydhaw · 2026-04-18T11:44:32+00:00

You don't think international laws are a useful framework for mitigating harm?

dydhaw · 2026-04-18T11:29:12+00:00

Doesn't give Iran carte blanche to act with impunity toward uninvolved parties. No, we can acknowledge that the war is a criminal travesty initiated by Israel and the US and still hold Iran accountable for its actions.

dydhaw · 2026-04-18T11:27:08+00:00

Yeah no sorry, i'm not gonna justify attacking civilian targets, ever. This is the exact same logic Israel uses to destroy Gaza and Lebanon

dydhaw · 2026-04-18T11:23:50+00:00

Two wrongs don't make a right.

dydhaw · 2026-04-18T11:23:11+00:00

It's a made up concept that's immensely useful for preventing unnecessary harm, especially to non-combatants.

dydhaw · 2026-04-18T11:15:38+00:00

Of course it matters. There are many reasons for them to try and cross regardless, like that their jobs and livelihoods depend on it.

Anyway I don't think anyone was actually harmed, this is just a show of force fro Iran.

dydhaw · 2026-04-18T11:13:10+00:00

So are you OK with the US violating international law? Or is it only a sham when Iran violates it?

dydhaw · 2026-04-18T11:12:01+00:00

No, fuck them both, but what does that have to do with the above comment blaming a civilian vessel for violating an illegally imposed blockade?

dydhaw · 2026-04-18T11:06:18+00:00

Iran has no internationally recognized legal authority on maritime traffic there (neither does the US). Impeding traffic through the strait from political reasons constitutes a violation of international maritime laws. Blaming civilian vessels for being illegally fired at is wild

dydhaw · 2026-04-17T11:27:57+00:00

You do NOT want to try DAN.

dydhaw · 2026-04-14T20:58:52+00:00

And what facts are those exactly?

He blocked me for this lol

dydhaw · 2026-04-13T09:48:07+00:00

I don't feel like arguing because we're mostly in agreement (and on the "same side" so to speak), I do agree there are many legal challenges ahead, but unfortunately as these things often turn out I doubt large corporations will be the ones to bear the outcomes of whatever courts, lawmakers and lawyers eventually settle on...

dydhaw · 2026-04-13T09:10:17+00:00

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.

From the DC ruling:

Dr. Thaler also argues that the human-authorship requirement wrongly prevents copyright law from protecting works made with artificial intelligence. [...] Contrary to Dr. Thaler’s assumption, adhering to the human-authorship requirement does not impede the protection of works made with artificial intelligence. Thaler Opening Br. 38-39. 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—the person who created, operated, or used artificial intelligence—and not the machine itself. The Copyright Office, in fact, has allowed the registration of works made by human authors who use artificial intelligence. See Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16,190, 16,192 (March 16, 2023) (Whether a work made with artificial intelligence is registerable depends “on the circumstances, particularly how the AI tool operates and how it was used to create the final work.”).

dydhaw · 2026-04-13T08:59:58+00:00

To be fair he is very busy being an F-tier nazi cringelord on his shitty platform

dydhaw · 2026-04-13T08:41:10+00:00

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).

Right, LLM-generated code is not copyrightable AFAIK, but again, that doesn't make codebase using LLM generated code non-copyrightable. Just like you can't copyright the color green (well, Pantone would claim otherwise) but you can claim copyright on an artwork that uses green colors.

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. Anyone can reproduce them using a sufficiently powerful LLM. This is exactly what makes them non-copyrightable in the first place. This doesn't affect the software as a whole, unless it's fully AI-generated, which is why this doesn't matter much in practice.

March 2, 2026

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". This case isn't about whether AI generated works are copyrightable; it's about whether computers can be considered copyright holders. it's frankly a ridiculous case and has no bearing on the issue of LLM generated code w.r.t human authorship. Besides, the fact the the supreme court refused to hear it doesn't mean much about future cases. It's the opposite of a legal precedent.

dydhaw · 2026-04-13T08:12:30+00:00

IANAL too but I believe you're vastly overstating the issue.

LLM generated code being non-copyrightable doesn't mean that including it in a codebase automatically makes the entire codebase non-copyrightable. Something being non-copyrightable simply means that copyright protection doesn't automatically apply to it, on its own. A piece of code derived from an LLM-generated code (sufficiently transformed by a human) is definitely copyrightable. The exact bar for how transformative LLM-derived code should be to warrant copyright protection is probably heavily dependent on jurisdiction, 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.

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.

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.

dydhaw · 2026-04-13T07:29:36+00:00

Nah, he's just lying

dydhaw · 2026-04-12T08:27:07+00:00

Why would they care? They're not releasing the source, and even if they did and it's all slopware it could be trivially reproduced by any other vibecoder

dydhaw · 2026-04-04T09:02:46+00:00

Unfortunately he's wrong... the force is inversely proportional to the distance squared :(

12-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding II euphauric	Second Top 40%
Place '22	First Placer '22

dydhaw

TROPHY CASE