Related:
This is in a PR where Shougo, another long-time contributor, communicates entirely in walls of unparseable AI slop text: https://github.com/vim/vim/pull/19413
Thank you for the detailed feedback! I’ve addressed all the issues:
Thank you for the feedback! I agree that following the Vim 8+ naming convention makes sense.
Thank you for the feedback on naming!
Thanks for the suggestion! After thinking about this more, I believe repeat_set() / repeat_get() is the right choice:
Thank you for the feedback. A brief clarification.
Can you point to an example where this happened? Oracle v Google has become the standard which allows for transformative work, public use, and provisions for even going as reverse engineering. I believed this has largely been addressed but I’m open to learn who got fucked and how.
I don’t have a specific example of an end user of a generative model being sued, but there are tons of examples of the creators of the models (OpenAI, Midjourney, etc) being sued. It’s not farfetched to think someone using an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work output by an LLM could be sued for it. For example, if I started publishing an AI generated version of The Simpsons, I’d imagine I’d be sued.
Look I’m not saying it wouldn’t be possible to abuse the system, but that’s not how ip works. The example provided isn’t transformative nor very applicable from the legal perspective.
At this point and time as far as I know, this concern isn’t valid beyond someones imagination.