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

331–340 of 427 posts

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#331

Post by fragmede »

a57721 wrote: post #214
viraptor wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only the simplest one is open (and before you discount it as too trivial, somehow none of the other ones did what I wanted) https://github.com/viraptor/pomodoro The others are just too specific for me to be useful for anyone else: an android app for automatic processing of some text messages and a work scheduling/prioritising thing. The time to make them generic enough to share would be much longer than creating my s…

> and before you discount it as too trivial, somehow none of the other ones did what I wanted No offense, it's really great that you are able to make apps that do exactly what you want, but your examples are not very good to show that "software projects that somehow are 100% human developed will not be competitive with AI assisted or written projects" (as someone else suggested above). Complex real world software is…

> Complex real world software is different from pomodoro timers and TODO lists.

Simplistic Pomodoro timer with no features, sure, but a full blown modern Todo app that syncs to configurable backend(s), has a website, mobile apps, an electron app, CLI/TUI, web hooks, other integrations? Add a login system and allow users to assign todos to each other, and have todos depend on other todos and visualizations and it starts looking like JIRA, which is totally complex real world software.

The weakness of LLMs is that they can't do anything that's not in their training data. But they've got so much training data that say you had a box of Lego bricks but could only use those bricks to build models. If you had a brick copier, and one copy of every single brick type on the Internet, the fact that you couldn't invent new pieces from scratch would be a limitation, but given the number of bricks on all the Internet, that covers a lot of area. Most (but not all) software is some flavor of CRUD app, and if LLMs could only write every CRUD app ever that would still be tremendous value.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#332

Post by fragmede »

amake wrote: post #189
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…

> It's not obvious because people producing high quality stuff have no incentive at all to mark their changes as AI-generated I feel like we'd be hearing from business that crushed their competition by delivering faster or with fewer people. Where are those businesses? > But there are also local tools generated This is really not the same thing as the original claim ("Software projects that somehow are 100% human dev…

We'll have to see how it pans out for Cloudflare. They published an oauth thing and all the prompts used to create it.

https://github.com/cloudflare/workers-oauth-provider/

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#333

Post by okayoroof »

amake wrote: post #221
rvnx wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All around you, just that it doesn’t make sense for developers to reveal that a lot of their work is now about chunking and refining the specifications written by the product owner. Admitting such is like admitting you are overpaid for your job, and that a 20 USD AI-agent can do better and faster than you for 75% of the work. Is it easy to admit that you have learnt skills for 10+ years that are progressively already…

> All around you, just that it doesn’t make sense for developers to reveal that OK, but I asked for evidence and people just keep not providing any. "God is all around you; he just works in mysterious ways" OK, good luck with that.

[dead]

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#334

Post by luqtas »

lynx97 wrote: post #179
luqtas wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's like driving big personal vehicles and having a bunch of children and eating a bunch of meat and do nothing about because marine and terrestrial ecosystems weren't fully destroyed by global warming

Ahh, there you go, environmental activists outright saying having children is considered a crime against nature. Wonderful, you seem to hit a rather bad stereotype right on the head. What is next? Earth would be better of if humanity was eradicated?

go inform yourself [0]

0: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/...

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#335

Post by alganet »

rvnx wrote: post #287
amake wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All around you, just that it doesn’t make sense for developers to reveal that OK, but I asked for evidence and people just keep not providing any. "God is all around you; he just works in mysterious ways" OK, good luck with that.

Billions of people believe in god(s). In fact, 75 to 85% of the world population, btw.

Billions of people _say_ they believe in god. It's very different.

--

When you analyze church attendance, it drops to roughly 50% instead of 85% of the population:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_attendance#Demographics

If you start to investigate many aspects of religious belief, like how many christians read the bible, the numbers drop drastically to less than 15%

https://www.statista.com/statistics/299433/bible-readership-...

This demonstrates that we cannot rely on self-reporting to understand religious belief. In practice, most people are closer to atheists than believers.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#336

Post by alluro2 »

latexr wrote: post #316
alluro2 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend experienced a similar thing at work - he gave a well-informed assessment of why something is difficult to implement and it would take a couple of weeks, based on the knowledge of the system and experience with it - only for the manager to reply within 5 min with a screenshot of an (even surprisingly) idiotic ChatGPT reply, and a message along the lines of "here's how you can do it, I guess by the end of the…

> and a message along the lines of "here's how you can do it, I guess by the end of the day". — How about you do it, motherfucker?! If it’s that simple, you do it! And when you can’t, I’ll come down there, push your face on the keyboard, and burn your office to the ground, how about that? — Well, you don’t have to get mean about it. — Yeah, I do have to get mean about it. Nothing worse than an ignorant, arrogant, kno…

Hah, that's a good clip :) Those "angry people" are really essential as an outlet for the rest of us.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#337

Post by alluro2 »

spit2wind wrote: post #255
alluro2 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend experienced a similar thing at work - he gave a well-informed assessment of why something is difficult to implement and it would take a couple of weeks, based on the knowledge of the system and experience with it - only for the manager to reply within 5 min with a screenshot of an (even surprisingly) idiotic ChatGPT reply, and a message along the lines of "here's how you can do it, I guess by the end of the…

Sounds like a teachable moment. If it's that simple, sounds like you've got your solution! Go ahead and take care of it. If it fits V&V and other normal procedures, like passing tests and documentation, then we'll merge it in. Shouldn't be a problem for you since it will only take a moment.

Absolutely agree :) If only he wasn't completely non-technical, managing a team of ~30 devs of varying skill levels and experience - which is the root cause of most of the issues, I assume.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#338

Post by furyofantares »

AJ007 wrote: post #63
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…

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…

Much of that may be true in the (near) future but it also makes sense for people to make decisions that apply right now, and update as the future comes along.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#339

Post by fc417fc802 »

latexr wrote: post #307
fc417fc802 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the authors vibe out while playing guitar and clipping their toenails I don't think anyone is claiming that. If you submit changes to a FOSS project and an LLM assisted you in writing them how would anyone know? Assuming at least that you are an otherwise competent developer and that you carefully review all code before you commit it. The (admittedly still controversial) claim being made is that developers with LLM…

> Assuming at least that you are an otherwise competent developer and that you carefully review all code before you commit it. That is a big assumption. If everyone were doing that, this wouldn’t be a major issue. But as the curl developer has noted, people are using LLMs without thinking and wasting everyone’s time and resources. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/danielstenberg_hackerone-curl... I can attest to that. J…

Sure I won't disagree that those people also exist but I don't think that's who the claim is being made about. Pointing out that subpar developers exist doesn't refute that good ones exist.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#340

Post by golergka »

blibble wrote: post #65
ants_everywhere wrote: post #28

This is signed off primarily by RedHat, and they tend to be pretty serious/corporate. I suspect their concern is not so much whether users have own the copyright to AI output but rather the risk that AI will spit out code from its training set that belongs to another project. Most hypervisors are closed source and some are developed by litigious companies.

> but rather the risk that AI will spit out code from its training set that belongs to another project. this is everything that it spits out

When model trained on trillions of lines of code knows that inside of a `try` block, tokens `logger` and `.` have a high probability of being followed by `error` token, but almost zero probability of being followed by `find` token, which project does this belong to?
Post reply on HN