Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 427 posts

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#31

Post by compton93 »

JonChesterfield wrote: post #22

Interesting. Harder line than the LLVM one found at https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#ai-generated-cont... I'm very old man shouting at clouds about this stuff. I don't want to review code the author doesn't understand and I don't want to merge code neither of us understand.

I don't want to review code the author doesn't understand

This really bothers me. I've had people ask me to do some task except they get AI to provide instructions on how to do the task and send me the instructions, rather than saying "Hey can you please do X". It's insulting.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#32

Post by gerdesj »

jekwoooooe wrote: post #11

When will people give up this archaic practice of sending patches over emails?

When enough people don't want to do it anymore. Feel free to step up, live with email patches, and add to the numbers of those who don't like it and say so.

Why is it archaic if it works? I get there might be other ways to do patch sharing and discussion but what exactly is your problem with email as a transport?

You might as well describe voice and ears as archaic!

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#33

Post by javawizard »

ants_everywhere wrote: post #25
hollerith wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always thought that the possibility of forking the project is the main benefit to open-source licensing, and we know Android can be forked.

the primary benefit of open source is freedom

This is so tautological that I can't really tell what point you're trying to make.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#34

Post by Art9681 »

This is a "BlockBuster laughs Netflix out of the room" moment. I am a huge fan of QEMU and used it throughout my career. The maintainers have every right to govern their project as they see fit. But this is a lot of mental gymnastics to justify clinging to punchcards in a world where we now have magnetic tape and keyboards to do things faster. This tech didn't spawn weeks ago. Every major project has had at least two years to prepare for this moment.

Pull your pants up.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#35

Post by benlivengood »

Open source and libre/free software are particularly vulnerable to a future where AI-generated code is ruled to be either infringing or public domain.

In the former case, disentangling AI-edits from human edits could tie a project up in legal proceedings for years and projects don't have any funding to fight a copyright suit. Specifically, code that is AI-generated and subsequently modified or incorporated in the rest of the code would raise the question of whether subsequent human edits were non-fair-use derivative works.

In the latter case the license restrictions no longer apply to portions of the codebase raising similar issues from derived code; a project that is only 98% OSS/FS licensed suddenly has much less leverage in takedowns to companies abusing the license terms; having to prove that infringers are definitely using the human-generated and licensed code.

Proprietary software is only mildly harmed in either case; it would require speculative copyright owners to disassemble their binaries and try to make the case that AI-generated code infringed without being able to see the codebase itself. And plenty of proprietary software has public domain code in it already.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#36

Post by 9283409232 »

Art9681 wrote: post #34

This is a "BlockBuster laughs Netflix out of the room" moment. I am a huge fan of QEMU and used it throughout my career. The maintainers have every right to govern their project as they see fit. But this is a lot of mental gymnastics to justify clinging to punchcards in a world where we now have magnetic tape and keyboards to do things faster. This tech didn't spawn weeks ago. Every major project has had at least two…

You're so dramatic. Like they said in the declaration, these are the early days of AI development and all the problems they mention will be eventually resolved so they have no problem taking a backseat while things sort themselves out and I respect that choice.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#37

Post by hughw »

I'd hope there could be some distinction between using LLM as a super autocomplete in your IDE, vs giving it high-level guidelines and making it generate substantive code. It's a gray area, sure, but if I made a contribution I'd want to be able to use the labor-saving feature of Copilot, say, without danger of it copying an algorithm from open source code. For example, today I generated a series of case statements and Copilot detected the pattern and saved me tons of typing.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#38

Post by 9283409232 »

kazinator wrote: post #19
wyldfire wrote: post #13

I understand where this comes from but I think it's a mistake. I agree it would be nice if there were "well settled law" regarding AI and copyright, probably relatively few rulings and next to zero legislation on which to base their feelings. In addition to a policy to reject contributions from AI, I think it may make sense to point out places where AI generated content can be used. For example - how much of QEMU pro…

There is a well settled practice in computing that you just don't plagiarize code. Even a small snippet. Even if copyright law would consider such a small thing "fair use".

This isn't 100% true meaning it isn't well settled. Have people already forgotten Google vs Oracle? Google ended up winning that after years and years but the judgements went back and forth and there are around 4 or 5 guidelines to determine whether something is or isn't fair use and generative AI would fail at a few of those.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#39

Post by dheera »

hughw wrote: post #37

I'd hope there could be some distinction between using LLM as a super autocomplete in your IDE, vs giving it high-level guidelines and making it generate substantive code. It's a gray area, sure, but if I made a contribution I'd want to be able to use the labor-saving feature of Copilot, say, without danger of it copying an algorithm from open source code. For example, today I generated a series of case statements an…

That and also just AI glasses that become an extension of my mind and body, just giving me clues and guidance on everything I do including what's on my screen.

I see those glasses as becoming just a part of me, just like my current dumb glasses are a part of me that enables me to see better, the smart glasses will help me to see AND think better.

My brain was trained on a lot of proprietary code as well, the copyright issues around AI models are pointless western NIMBY thinking and will lead to the downfall of western civilization if they keep pursuing legal what-ifs as an excuse to reject awesome technology.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#40

Post by add-sub-mul-div »

Art9681 wrote: post #34

This is a "BlockBuster laughs Netflix out of the room" moment. I am a huge fan of QEMU and used it throughout my career. The maintainers have every right to govern their project as they see fit. But this is a lot of mental gymnastics to justify clinging to punchcards in a world where we now have magnetic tape and keyboards to do things faster. This tech didn't spawn weeks ago. Every major project has had at least two…

> This is a "BlockBuster laughs Netflix out of the room" moment

I'm not sure that's the dunk you think it is. Good for Netflix for making money, but we're drowning in their empty slop content now and worse off for it.

Post reply on HN