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

Gentoo AI Policy

wiki.gentoo.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 206 posts

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#71

Post by perching_aix »

AdieuToLogic wrote: post #58
ants_everywhere wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing a very important reason 4 - There is a very active anti-LLM activist movement and they care more about participating in it than they care about free software. For example, see their rationale, which are just canned anti-LLM activist talking points. You see the same ones repeated and memed ad nauseam if you lurk on anti-AI spaces.

> You're missing a very important reason > 4 - There is a very active anti-LLM activist movement ... All I can say to this is that my position is Large Language Models (LLM's) are a combination of algorithms and data. As as such, for me they do not qualify as anything to be either "pro" or "anti", let alone a participant of an activist movement.

They were not talking about LLMs being participants of anything, but people who are against LLMs in whatever capacity. Surely people can be participants of a movement.

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#72

Post by [deleted] »

bestham wrote: post #70
jjmarr wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been using AI to contribute to LLVM, which has a liberal policy. The code is of terrible quality and I am at 100+ comments on my latest PR. That being said, my latest PR is my second-ever to LLVM and is an entire linter check. I am learning far more about compilers at a much faster pace than if I took the "normal route" of tiny bugfixes. I also try to do review passes on my own code before asking for code review…

IMO that is not your call to make, it is the reviews call to make. It is the reviewers resources you are spending to learn more quickly. You are consuming a “free” resource for personal gain because you feel that it is justified in your particular case. It would likely not scale and grind many projects to a halt at least temporarily if this was done at scale.

[deleted]

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#73

Post by boristsr »

steveklabnik wrote: post #46
CursedSilicon wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's quite a strawman definition of "copyright infringement" especially given the ongoing Anthropic lawsuit It's not a question of if feeding all the worlds books into a blender and eating the resulting slurry paste is copyright infringement. It's that they stole the books in the first place by getting them from piracy websites If they'd purchased every book ever written, scanned them in and fed that into the model…

That’s what happened; the initial piracy was an issue, but those models were never released, and the models that were released were trained on copyrighted works they purchased.

That's not true, or they wouldn't have settled for 1.5bln specifically for training on pirated material.

https://apnews.com/article/anthropic-copyright-authors-settl...

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#74

Post by ororroro »

bestham wrote: post #70
jjmarr wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been using AI to contribute to LLVM, which has a liberal policy. The code is of terrible quality and I am at 100+ comments on my latest PR. That being said, my latest PR is my second-ever to LLVM and is an entire linter check. I am learning far more about compilers at a much faster pace than if I took the "normal route" of tiny bugfixes. I also try to do review passes on my own code before asking for code review…

IMO that is not your call to make, it is the reviews call to make. It is the reviewers resources you are spending to learn more quickly. You are consuming a “free” resource for personal gain because you feel that it is justified in your particular case. It would likely not scale and grind many projects to a halt at least temporarily if this was done at scale.

The decision is made by llvm https://llvm.org/docs/FAQ.html#id4

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#75

Post by danpalmer »

dmead wrote: post #18
danpalmer wrote: post #16

This is a prime example of poor AI policy. It doesn't define what AI is – is using Google translate in order to engage on their mailing lists allowed? Is using Intellisense-like tools that we've had for decades allowed? The rationale is also poor, citing concerns that can be applied far more widely than just LLMs. The ethical concerns are pretty hand-wavy, I'm pretty sure email is used to empower spam and yet I suspe…

> It doesn't define what AI is this is a bad faith comment.

Honestly, I tried to make this in good faith. The examples I gave were perhaps extreme, but my point is that AI is a moving target. Today it means specifically generative AI done by large models – usually not classification, recommendations, and usually not "small" models, all of which have been normalised. LLMs are becoming normalised, and policy needs to be able to keep up to the shifting technological landscape.

Defining policy on the outcomes, rather than the inputs, makes it more resilient and ultimately more effective. Defining policy on the inputs is easy to dismantle.

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#76

Post by jjmarr »

totallymike wrote: post #66
jjmarr wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been using AI to contribute to LLVM, which has a liberal policy. The code is of terrible quality and I am at 100+ comments on my latest PR. That being said, my latest PR is my second-ever to LLVM and is an entire linter check. I am learning far more about compilers at a much faster pace than if I took the "normal route" of tiny bugfixes. I also try to do review passes on my own code before asking for code review…

[flagged]

I didn't make a decision on the tradeoff, the LLVM community did. I also disclosed it in the PR. I also try to mitigate the code review burden by doing as much review as possible on my end & flagging what I don't understand.

If your project has a policy against AI usage I won't submit AI-generated code because I respect your decision.

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#77

Post by noosphr »

totallymike wrote: post #66
jjmarr wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been using AI to contribute to LLVM, which has a liberal policy. The code is of terrible quality and I am at 100+ comments on my latest PR. That being said, my latest PR is my second-ever to LLVM and is an entire linter check. I am learning far more about compilers at a much faster pace than if I took the "normal route" of tiny bugfixes. I also try to do review passes on my own code before asking for code review…

[flagged]

That's no different to on boarding any new contributor. I cringe at the code I put out when I was 18.

On top of all that every open source project has a gray hair problem.

Telling people excited about a new tech to never contribute makes sure that all projects turn into templeOS when the lead maintainer moves on.

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#78

Post by danpalmer »

Spivak wrote: post #17
danpalmer wrote: post #16

This is a prime example of poor AI policy. It doesn't define what AI is – is using Google translate in order to engage on their mailing lists allowed? Is using Intellisense-like tools that we've had for decades allowed? The rationale is also poor, citing concerns that can be applied far more widely than just LLMs. The ethical concerns are pretty hand-wavy, I'm pretty sure email is used to empower spam and yet I suspe…

Or because this is a policy by and for human adults who all understand what we're talking about you just don't accept contributions from anyone obviously rule-lawyering in bad faith. This isn't a court system, anyone intentionally trying to test the boundaries probably isn't someone you want to bother with in the first place.

This policy being so specific in what it bans means that you can't enforce it easily against people who are close but technically within the letter of the policy, and you create a grey area and friction for those who are meeting the spirit of the policy in good faith, but technically in violation.

I have friends and colleagues who I trust as good engineers who take different positions on this (letter vs spirit) and I think there are good faith contributions negatively impacted by both sides of this.

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#79

Post by infamia »

simianwords wrote: post #32

> Ethical concerns. The business side of AI boom is creating serious ethical concerns. Among them: Commercial AI projects are frequently indulging in blatant copyright violations to train their models. Their operations are causing concerns about the huge use of energy and water. The advertising and use of AI models has caused a significant harm to employees and reduction of service quality. LLMs have been empowering…

> Highly disingenuous. First, AI being trained on copyrighted data is considered fair use because it transforms the underlying data rather than distribute it as is.

Your legal argument aside, they downloaded torrents and trained their AI on them. You can't get much more blatant than that.

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#80

Post by puilp0502 »

Every time I encounter these kinds of policy, I can't help but wonder how these policies would be enforced: The people who are considerate enough to abide by these policies, are the ones who would have "cared" about the code qualities and stuff like that, so the policy is a moot point for these kinds of people. OTOH, the people who recklessly spam "contributions" generated from LLMs, by their very nature, would not respect these policies in very high likelihood. For me it's like telling bullies to don't bully.

By the way, I'm in no way against these kinds of policy: I've seen what happened to curl, and I think it's fully in their rights to outright ban any usage of LLMs. I'm just concerned about the enforceability of these policies.

Post reply on HN