People used to fear compilers too.
AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions
161–170 of 482 posts
Re: AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions
#162I’m not a big AI fan but I do see it as just another tool in your toolbox. I wouldn’t really care how someone got to the end result that is a PR. But I also think that if a maintainer asks you to jump before submitting a PR, you politely ask, “how high?”
We keep talking about “AI replacing coders,” but the real shift might be that coding itself stops looking like coding. If prompts become the de facto way to create applications/developing systems in the future, maybe programming languages will just be baggage we’ll need to unlearn. Programming languages were a nice abstraction to accommodate our inability to comprehend complexity - current day LLMs do not have the sa…
All we need to do is prompt an LLM with such specificity that it does exactly what we want the machine to do.
Re: AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
Make a knowledgeable reply and mention you used chat-gpt - comment immediately buried. Make a knowledgeable reply and give no reference to the AI you used- comment is celebrated. We are already barreling full speed down the "hide your AI use" path.
I doubt a PR is going to be buried if it's useful, well designed, good code, etc, just because of this disclosure. Articulate how you used AI and I think you've met the author's intent. If the PR has issues and requires more than superficial re-work to be acceptable, the authors don't want to spend time debugging code spit out by an AI tool. They're more willing to spend a cycle or two if the benefit is you learning…
> I doubt a PR is going to be buried if it's useful, well designed, good code, etc, just because of this disclosure
If that were the case, why would this rule be necessary, if it indeed is the substance that matters? AI generated anything has a heavy slop stigma right now, even if the content is solid.
This would make for an interesting experiment to submit a PR that was absolute gold but with the disclaimer it was generated with help of ChatGPT. I would almost guarantee it would be received with skepticism and dismissals.
Re: AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions
#164I’m not a big AI fan but I do see it as just another tool in your toolbox. I wouldn’t really care how someone got to the end result that is a PR. But I also think that if a maintainer asks you to jump before submitting a PR, you politely ask, “how high?”
It's not just about how you got there. At least in the United States according to the Copyright Office... materials produced by artificial intelligence are not eligible for copyright. So, yeah, some people want to know for licensing purposes. I don't think that's the case here, but it is yet another reason to require that kind of disclosure... since if you fail to mention that something was made by AI as part of a compound work you could end up losing copyright over the whole thing. For more details, see [2] (which is part of the larger report on Copyright and AI at [1]).
--
[1] https://www.copyright.gov/ai/
[2] https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...
Re: AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions
#165We also require this in the Caddy project too, but enforcing it is difficult.
Re: AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions
#166[dead]
Re: AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions
#167I’m not a big AI fan but I do see it as just another tool in your toolbox. I wouldn’t really care how someone got to the end result that is a PR. But I also think that if a maintainer asks you to jump before submitting a PR, you politely ask, “how high?”
[dead]
Re: AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions
#168Aren't a large majority of programmers using Copilot/Cursor/AI autocompletion? This seems very noisy/unhelpful.
> This seems very noisy/unhelpful.
The irony of this, when talking about AI.
Re: AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You must ask "Do I trust where this came from?" And to answer that, you need to know where it come from. No you don’t. You can’t outsource trust determinations. Especially to the people you claim not to trust! You make the judgement call by looking at the code and your known history of the contributor. Nobody cares if contributors use an LLM or a magnetic needle to generate code. They care if bad code gets introduc…
> Nobody cares if contributors use an LLM or a magnetic needle to generate code. That’s exactly opposite of what the author is saying. He mentions that [if the code is not good, or you are a beginner] he will help you get to finish line, but if it’s LLM code, he shouldn’t be putting effort because there’s no human on the other side. It makes sense to me.
"but if it’s LLM code, he shouldn’t be putting effort because there’s no human on the other side"
That's the false equivalence right there
Re: AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
They genuinely believe their use of chatbots is equivalent to multiple years of production experience in a language. They want to erase that distinction (“democratize”) so they can have the same privileges and status without the work. Otherwise, what’s the harm in saying AI guides you to the solution if you can attest to it being a good solution?
That's just not true. I have 20 years of dev experience and also am using these tools. I won't commit slop. I'm open to being transparent about my usage of AI but tbh right now there's so much bias and vitriol coming from people afraid of these new tools that in the haze of their fear I don't trust people will actually take the time to neutrally determine whether or not the code is actually slop. I've had manually wr…
You should not just be open to being transparent, you need to understand that there will be times you will be required to be transparent about the tools you’ve used and the ultimate origin of your contributions, and that trying to evade or even push back against it is a huge red flag that you cannot be trusted to abide by your commitments.
If you’re unwilling to stop using slop tools, then you don’t get to contribute to some projects, and you need to be accept that.