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

AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 482 posts

Re: AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions

#191

Post by tsimionescu »

blurbleblurble wrote: post #169
geraneum wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

It's not a false equivalence. You can teach a beginner to become an intermediate (and later a master, if they stick to it). You can't teach an LLM to be better. Every piece of feedback you give to an LLM is like screaming into the void - it wastes your time, and doesn't change the LLM one iota.

Re: AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions

#193

Post by eschaton »

blurbleblurble wrote: post #189
eschaton wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your blanket determination that the tools themselves are slop generators is an attitude I'm definitely not interested in engaging with in collaboration.

[flagged]

Re: AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions

#194

Post by blurbleblurble »

tsimionescu wrote: post #191
blurbleblurble wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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

It's not a false equivalence. You can teach a beginner to become an intermediate (and later a master, if they stick to it). You can't teach an LLM to be better. Every piece of feedback you give to an LLM is like screaming into the void - it wastes your time, and doesn't change the LLM one iota.

"Every piece of feedback you give to an LLM is like screaming into the void - it wastes your time, and doesn't change the LLM one iota."

I think you just haven't gotten the hang of it yet, which is fine... the tooling is very immature and hard to get consistent results with. But this isn't a given. Some people do get good, steerable LLM coding setups.

Re: AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions

#195

Post by tsimionescu »

sheepscreek wrote: post #157
Waterluvian wrote: post #10

I’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…

This fundamentally misunderstands why programming languages exist. They're not required because "we can't understand complexity". They were invented because we need a way to be very specific about what we want the machine to do. Whether it's the actual physical hardware we're talking to when writing assembly, or it's an abstract machine that will be translated to the hardware like in C or Java, the key point is that we want to be specific.

Natural language can be specific, but it requires far too many words. `map (+ 1) xs` is far shorter to write than "return a list of elements by applying a function that adds one to its argument to each element of xs and collecting the results in a separate list", or similar.

Re: AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions

#196

Post by ikiris »

eschaton wrote: post #170
blurbleblurble wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What tools did you use to generate this response? Please include the make and model of the devices, and what os and browser you were running, including all browser plugins and other code which had screen access at that time.

Re: AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions

#197

Post by blurbleblurble »

eschaton wrote: post #193
blurbleblurble wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your blanket determination that the tools themselves are slop generators is an attitude I'm definitely not interested in engaging with in collaboration.

[flagged]

I'd way sooner quit my job / not contribute than deal with someone who projects on me the way you have in this conversation.

Re: AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions

#198

Post by eschaton »

ikiris wrote: post #196
eschaton wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What tools did you use to generate this response? Please include the make and model of the devices, and what os and browser you were running, including all browser plugins and other code which had screen access at that time.

[flagged]

Re: AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions

#199

Post by eschaton »

blurbleblurble wrote: post #197
eschaton wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I'd way sooner quit my job / not contribute than deal with someone who projects on me the way you have in this conversation.

Enjoy being found out for fraudulently passing off work you didn’t do as your own then.

Re: AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions

#200

Post by blurbleblurble »

eschaton wrote: post #199
blurbleblurble wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd way sooner quit my job / not contribute than deal with someone who projects on me the way you have in this conversation.

Enjoy being found out for fraudulently passing off work you didn’t do as your own then.

Ironically as a practice I'm actually quite transparent about how I use LLMs and believe that destigmatising open conversation about use of these tools is actually really important, just not that it's a useful heuristic for whether or not some code is slop.
Post reply on HN