Hi Jean, Eli, GNU,

> "open source"
I am referring to free software in the spirit
of GNU. Free as in freedom, from oppression,
from an attack against creative and cognitive
intelligence.

> GPT is potentially the best thing to happen to emacs in a very long time.
> It will bring back power from the corporations and save it to your
> computer, open source and transparent, and offline.

The way this will work is you will download
the free GPT model, such as GPT-j, GPT-neo or
GPT-neox and then you will have an offline and
private alternative to many things previously
you would go online for.

I have been working 5 months on demonstrations
this whole time and I have informed you guys via emails,
using specific demonstrations. I've even hand
picked for you.

Now you ask again and I'll give you another, but
you are missing the point by
focusing on one example when the possibilities
are infinite.

If I was a computing pioneer and I had to
convince you of the importance of AI and all I
had was the lambda calculus, would you see it?
And you ask me for another cherry-picked demo,
but it is very much beyond your current
understanding.

It's so much beyond what you believe is
possible that you ask for an example. I have
shown you 10+ already.

GPT turns emacs into something very powerful
beyond your current comprehension. It's so
profound that it will replace many of the
online and offline services you may have come
to take for granted. It goes way beyond that too.

This is the telos and purpose of emacs. It
can save free software by absorbing GPT.

GPT is not a toy.

Here is another demo.
The below instructions were given to me by the
tutor in Pen.el when I asked it for help.

    There are two ways to quit Emacs, the hard way, and the easy way.
    In the hard way, you type M-x kill-emacs, and press enter.
    In the easy way, you press C-x C-c.

The following is a prompt that created this interactive function.

#+BEGIN_SRC yaml
  prompt: |
    This is a conversation between a human and a brilliant AI.
    The topic is "<2>".

    Human: Hello, are you my <1> tutor?
    ###
    AI: Hi there.
    Yes I am.
    How can I help you?
    ###
    Human: Thanks. I have a question. <2>
    ###
    AI: I would be happy to answer your question.
#+END_SRC

Here is the recording of me doing that:

https://asciinema.org/a/SCUhm3l11N3w5eilUfewBDCiP

In the future the core prompts will be only a
few bytes and most prompts we use will be
defined using types alone, or subjective to
previously executed prompt functions,
collaboratively.

A prompt may be defined by type names alone,
plus the version of a LM; the rest is inferred
or subjective to peer to peer prompts:

#+BEGIN_SRC emacs-lisp
  (defprompt ("short lines of code" "regex"))
#+END_SRC

You haven't yet understood the profundity of GPT and
doing a great disservice to free software by
stifling imaginary programming inside emacs.

Eli is right in that these LMs are not copy
pasting. They are indeed generating from a
statistical model. I know many people who are
creating their own models on themselves. There
will be infinitely many of these models in the
future. GNU needs one. LMs may be trained on
subsets of the code from GitHub to ensure
there is no possibility for derivative works
from conflicting licensed code.

> You are more or less proposing the same conflict to come to Emacs and
> I did not see where is your solution?
Emacs is dead without GPT. That's why I raised the issue.
It's dead because it can be imagined by LMs
and will lose its power. It'll be just another imagined environment.
Software is changing and Emacs can't miss out
because it represents freedom.

> So how?
As I have said countless times in the past and
is clearly visible from their website,
EleutherAI has MIT and Apache licensed
alternative models which you can freely
download.

Here is a completer you can freely use:
https://github.com/samrawal/emacs-secondmate

This will not replace everything from =gpt3demo.com=.

You're failing to see the full picture here.
It's absolutely vital for emacs' survival to
have GPT incorporated. Make it happen.

> As soon as anything is published in public
> without compliance to licenses it generates
> problems.
Prompts are completely at the license of the
person who created it, even if they are
queries to GPT3.
Just as I can write SQL to Microsoft SQL
Server and license my SQL as GPL3.
Prompts are code and I'm talking about a new
type of programming that is nonexistent in
emacs.

My suggestions:
- Create prompts database
  - So people can collaborate on open source prompts
  - So people can extend emacs with language models
  - So people know it's ok to use their imagination and emacs supports
creative intelligence
- Integrate prompt functions into emacs somehow
  - defprompt
- Optionally ship GPT-neo and GPT-j with emacs
- Consider creating a prompting server
- Consider a database for saving generations

=Pen.el= is GPL3. There's nothing wrong with
typing on a keyboard so it's fully compliant
with licensing.

=Pen.el= allows you to select the completion
engine and you may use a libre completion
engine such as GPT-j, GPT-neo or GPT-neox.

> "Prove me wrong"
Do me a favour and do some research yourself.
I have too much to do.

Sincerely,
Shane

Shane Mulligan

How to contact me:
🇦🇺 00 61 421 641 250
🇳🇿 00 64 21 1462 759 <+64-21-1462-759>
mullikine@gmail.com


On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 12:50 AM Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> wrote:

> * Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> [2021-07-23 14:51]:
> > > According to online reviews chunks of code is copied even verbatim and
> > > people find from where.
> >
> > That cannot be true.  It is nonsense to copy unrelated code into a
> > program and tell people this is what they should use.
>
> I wonder how sure you are in that, did you do the online research? It
> is not about related or unrelated, I do believe that AI finds and
> generates related code. But
>
> Here are references disputing how "it cannot be true":
>
> https://hacker-news.news/post/27710287
>
>
> https://mmacvicar.medium.com/it-is-best-if-copilot-copies-everything-d84506128e5a
>
>
> https://loudlabs.nl/news/githubs-commercial-ai-tool-was-built-from-open-source-code/
>
> > > If code compiles or not is irrelevant. If one runs it or not is also
> > > irrelevant, code need not even run.
> >
> > A feature or service that is based on this idea will never fly,
> > believe me.  Which program would want to have code pasted into his/her
> > program that would cause compilation errors or, worse, break it at run
> > time?
>
> Of course people want code to fun. Just that copyright laws don't
> handle technical functionality. It is irrelevant if program works or
> does not work. There are thousands of copyrighted programs that cannot
> work any more as devices are not on the market, they are still under
> copyright.
>
> > > I do not believe that any of the AI-s so far "extract ideas". I never
> > > heard of it. Which algorithms is there on this planet that may extract
> > > idea?
> >
> > That's a very general question, it is impossible to answer it in a
> > post to a mailing list.  If you are really interested, you will have
> > to read up on that.  But you are wrong in your beliefs.
> >
> > > If newly generated code is modification from other code, what we know
> > > now that it is, and is based on, that requires licensing
> > > attributions.
> >
> > Once again, your assumptions are all wrong, so your conclusions are
> > also wrong.  Why not try one of these services and see what they
> > actually do, before you pass your (quite harsh) judgment on them, and
> > on the modern state of AI in general?
>
> I can hear you how I am wrong, conclusions are wrong, though I gave
> you references enough to research it on Internet that will tell that
> there are possible serious licensing problems with such generated
> code.
>
> > > That licenses are relevant one can see from online discussions related
> > > to Github Copilot:
> >
> > That people ask these questions and discuss this doesn't mean the
> > problem is real.  many people don't really understand what copyright
> > means and how to apply it to program code.
>
> Well said! Though that is not relevant.
>
> Question is very particular, specific and concrete:
> ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
>
> How does Pen.el and background AI services ensure of licensing
> compliance?
>
> I would appreciate if you find solution to that or stay on that
> subject, as if I am wrong or right is not relevant, what I wish is to
> have assurance that it is free software. Prove me wrong by providing
> exact references in not only on country's law but also other
> countries' laws, the lows that make it legal, or how otherwise the
> legality of such code is justified and how users may get free
> software.
>
> For example you may wish to mention "fair use" and on the other hand
> similar laws must be found in other countries that would justify it to
> be free software.
>
> As long as you don't tackle those subjects there is no legal solution
> for Pen.el and background AI to be used with assurance that software
> is truly free software.
>
>
>
> Jean
>
> Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
> https://www.fsf.org/campaigns
>
> In support of Richard M. Stallman
> https://stallmansupport.org/
>
>
>
>
>