On 1/8/25 1:34 PM, Michael Fuchs via lazarus wrote:
It will only lead to incorrect documentation, because everything is happily pressed through the so-called ‘AI’ and then no longer checked. [...] But generating documentation from source code just like that?
This is solved very easily by not "no longer checking" what it is produced. At the end of the day, if you use AI or write the text yourself by hand, you are the one responsible for whatever you submit. You don't blame Notepad, Vim, Emacs, Word, OpenOffice or whatever other tool you may use to write text when you write something wrong, so it doesn't make sense to blame some AI either.
Its use as a ‘search engine’ has already been advertised to me several times.
Some AIs can be used more as an augmentation for a search engine in that you can ask them things and they can point you to various concepts. I've used Mixtral recently (an "open weights" model you can download on your PC, though i used it from duck.ai) and it produced decent results. However i used it together with a search engine to look for things (other AIs create links to sources but Mixtral didn't - however if i'm going to use some AI i'd rather use something i can run on my own PC, at least in theory until i get a better one :-P). In that way it worked more as an "optimization" to finding stuff than a replacement, but i still found it useful.
I think in general it depends *a lot* in how you use these things and how you approach the problems you want to solve yourself to see any benefit or not. Personally for example i can't think of any advantage in my workflow for AIs like co-pilot (i tried it a bit some time ago in Visual Studio in a VM and found it more annoying than helpful) but there are people who claim they can be much more productive with these.
And uses existing works by graphic designers who were not asked whether their icons and other images were used for these tools. If I remember, it was always a big issue not to take any source code from Delphi to avoid copyright problems... Then I find this problem-free use of stolen graphic data quite strange.
If copyright of the training data is the concern then AFAICT from the recent EU AI Act, using copyrighted data for training is permitted unless there is a machine readable way (the act doesn't specify the exact means, it is something that is still in the works, but there are a couple of solutions already) to opt-out from that (with an exception for some special cases, like research purposes, which can ignore the opt-out). The reasoning (AFAICT) is that AIs need to be trained in large amounts of data to work in the first place but at the same time some individuals may not want to be part of that. AFAIK the UK and the US are also going in the same direction.
Kostas -- _______________________________________________ lazarus mailing list lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus
