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

141–150 of 427 posts

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#141

Post by loktarogar »

pretoriusdre wrote: post #119

AI generated code is generally pretty good and incredibly fast. Seeing this new phenomenon must be difficult for those people who have spent a long time perfecting their craft. Essentially, they might feel that their skillsets are being undermined. It would be especially hard for people who associate a lot of their self-identity with their job. Being a purist is noble, but I think that this stance is foolish. Essenti…

It's not a stance about the merits of AI generated code but about the legal status of it, in terms of who owns it and related concepts.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#142

Post by nijave »

alganet wrote: post #101
viraptor wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's happening slowly all around. It's not obvious because people producing high quality stuff have no incentive at all to mark their changes as AI-generated. But there are also local tools generated faster than you could adjust existing tools to do what you want. I'm running 3 things now just for myself that I generated from scratch instead of trying to send feature requests to existing apps I can buy. It's only goi…

Can you show these 3 things to us?

Not sure about parent but you could argue Jetbrains fancy auto complete is AI and generates a substantial portion of code. It runs using a local model and, in my experience, does pretty good at guessing the rest of the line with minimal input (so you could argue 80% of each line was AI generated)

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#143

Post by mcoliver »

amake wrote: post #71
AJ007 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what experienced developers don't want random AI contributions from no-knowledge "developers" contributing to a project. In any situation, if a human is review AI code line by line that would tie up humans for years, even ignoring anything legally. #1 There will be no verifiable way to prove something was AI generated beyond early models. #2 Software projects that somehow are 100% human developed will no…

> #2 Software projects that somehow are 100% human developed will not be competitive with AI assisted or written projects Still waiting to see evidence of AI-driven projects eating the lunch of "traditional" projects.

80-90% of Claude is now written by Claude

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#144

Post by nijave »

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.

Especially when you try to correct them and they insist AI is the correct one

Sometimes it's fun reverse engineering the directions back into various forum, Stack Overflow, and documentation fragments and pointing out how AI assembled similar things into something incorrect

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#145

Post by [deleted] »

andy99 wrote: post #41
compton93 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#146

Post by Retric »

galangalalgol wrote: post #110
basilgohar wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like this is mostly proofless assertion. I'm aware what you hint at is happening, but the conclusions you arrive at are far from proven or even reasonable at this stage. For what it's worth, I think AI for code will arrive at a place like how other coding tools sit – hinting, intellisense, linting, maybe even static or dynamic analysis, but I doubt NOT using AI will be a critical asset to productivity. Someone…

I think that was his point, the project full of bad developers isn't the competition. It is a peer whose skill matches yours and uses agents on top of that. By myself I am no match for myself + cline.

That’s true in the short term. Longer term it’s questionable as using AI tools heavily means you don’t remember all the details creating a new form of technical debt.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#147

Post by abhisek »

> It's best to start strict and safe, then relax.

Makes total sense.

I am just wondering how do we differentiate between AI generated code and human written code that is influenced or copied from some unknown source. The same licensing problem may happen with human code as well especially for OSS where anyone can contribute.

Given the current usage, I am not sure if AI generated code has an identity of its own. It’s really a tool in the hand of a human.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#148

Post by 0x457 »

mcoliver wrote: post #143
amake wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> #2 Software projects that somehow are 100% human developed will not be competitive with AI assisted or written projects Still waiting to see evidence of AI-driven projects eating the lunch of "traditional" projects.

80-90% of Claude is now written by Claude

And whose lunch is it eating?

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#149

Post by joshstrange »

andy99 wrote: post #41
compton93 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’ve started to experience/see this and it makes me want to scream.

You can’t dismiss it out of hand (especially with it coming from up the chain) but it takes no time at all to generate by someone who knows nothing about the problem space (or worse, just enough to be dangerous) and it could take hours or more to debunk/disprove the suggestion.

I don’t know what to call this? Cognitive DDOS? Amplified Plausibility Attack? There should be a name for it and it should be ridiculed.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#150

Post by petesergeant »

andy99 wrote: post #41
compton93 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

I would find it very insulting if someone did this to me, for sure, as well as a huge waste of my time.

On the other hand I've also worked with some very intransigent developers who've actively fought against things they simply didn't want to do on flimsy technical grounds, knowing it couldn't be properly challenged by the requester.

On yet another hand, I've also been subordinate to people with a small amount of technical knowledge -- or a small amount of knowledge about a specific problem -- who'll do the exact same thing without ChatGPT: fire a bunch of mid-wit ideas downstream that you have already thought about, but you then need to spend a bunch of time explaining why their hot-takes aren't good. Or the CEO of a small digital agency I worked at circa 2004 asking us if we'd ever considered using CSS for our projects (which were of course CSS heavy).

Post reply on HN