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

41–50 of 427 posts

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#41

Post by andy99 »

compton93 wrote: post #31
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.

Had someone higher up ask about something in my area of expertise. I said I didn't think is was possible, he followed up with a chatGPT conversation he had where it "gave him some ideas that we could use as an approach", as if that was some useful insight.

This is the same people that think that "learning to code" is a translation issue they don't have time for as opposed to experience they don't have.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#42

Post by catlifeonmars »

Lerc wrote: post #26
Havoc wrote: post #4

I wonder whether the motivation is really legal? I get the sense that some projects are just sick of reviewing crap AI submissions

I'm not sure which way AI would move the dial when it comes to the median submission. Humans can, and do, make some crap code. If the problem is too many submissions, that would suggest there needs to be structures in place to manage that. Perhaps projects receiving lage quanties of updates need triage teams. I suspect most of the submissions are done in good faith. I can see some people choosing to avoid AI due to t…

> If the problem is too many submissions, that would suggest there needs to be structures in place to manage that. > Perhaps projects receiving lage quanties of updates need triage teams. I suspect most of the submissions are done in good faith.

This ignores the fact that many open source projects do not have the resources to dedicate to a large number of contributions. A side effect of LLM generated code is probably going to be a lot of code. I think this is going to be an issue that is not dependent on the overall quality of the code.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#43

Post by ehnto »

Lerc wrote: post #26
Havoc wrote: post #4

I wonder whether the motivation is really legal? I get the sense that some projects are just sick of reviewing crap AI submissions

I'm not sure which way AI would move the dial when it comes to the median submission. Humans can, and do, make some crap code. If the problem is too many submissions, that would suggest there needs to be structures in place to manage that. Perhaps projects receiving lage quanties of updates need triage teams. I suspect most of the submissions are done in good faith. I can see some people choosing to avoid AI due to t…

Barrier of entry, automated submissions are two aspects I see changing with AI. You at least have to be able to code before submitting bad code.

With AI you're going to get job hunters automating PRs for big name projects so they can stick the contributions in their resume.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#44

Post by dheera »

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

The author is me and my silicon buddy. We understand this stuff.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#45

Post by lmm »

loeg wrote: post #15
api wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quality contributions to OSS are rare unless the project is huge.

Historically the opposite of quality contributions has been no contributions, not net-negative contributions (random slop that costs more in review than it provides benefit).

No it hasn't? Net-negative contributions to open source have been extremely common for years, it's not like you need an LLM to make them.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#46

Post by ants_everywhere »

javawizard wrote: post #33
ants_everywhere wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

how can it possibly be tautological? The comment just above me said something entirely different: that the primary benefit of open source is forking

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#48

Post by halostatue »

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 have just started adding DCO to _all_ of the open source code that I maintain and will be adding text like this on `CONTRIBUTING.md`:

---

LLM-Generated Contribution Policy

Color is a library full of complex math and subtle decisions (some of them possibly even wrong). It is extremely important that any issues or pull requests be well understood by the submitter and that, especially for pull requests, the developer can attest to the Developer Certificate of Origin for each pull request (see LICENCE).

If LLM assistance is used in writing pull requests, this must be documented in the commit message and pull request. If there is evidence of LLM assistance without such declaration, the pull request will be declined.

Any contribution (bug, feature request, or pull request) that uses unreviewed LLM output will be rejected.

---

I am also adding this to my `SECURITY.md` entries:

---

LLM-Generated Security Report Policy

Absolutely no security reports will be accepted that have been generated by LLM agents.

---

As it's mostly just me, I'm trying to strike a balance, but my preference is against LLM generated contributions.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#49

Post by deadbabe »

benlivengood wrote: post #35

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 res…

If a software is truly wide open source in the sense of “do whatever the fuck you want with this code, we don’t care”, then it has nothing to fear from AI.
Post reply on HN