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

81–90 of 206 posts

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#81

Post by simianwords »

infamia wrote: post #79
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.

Yes but that was one company and it is not core to their infra or product. So I don’t know how one can characterize AI fundamentally to be unethical because one company pirated some books

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#82

Post by 29athrowaway »

AdieuToLogic wrote: post #6

Perhaps the most telling portion of their decision is: Quality concerns. Popular LLMs are really great at generating plausibly looking, but meaningless content. They are capable of providing good assistance if you are careful enough, but we can't really rely on that. At this point, they pose both the risk of lowering the quality of Gentoo projects, and of requiring an unfair human effort from developers and users to…

LLMs trained on open source make the common mistakes that humans make.

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#83

Post by jjmarr »

jlebar wrote: post #68
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…

As a former LLVM developer and reviewer, I want to say: 1. Good for you. 2. Ignore the haters in the comments. > my latest PR is my second-ever to LLVM and is an entire linter check. That is so awesome. > The code is of terrible quality and I am at 100+ comments on my latest PR. The LLVM reviewers are big kids. They know how to ignore a PR if they don't want to review it. Don't feel bad about wasting people's time. T…

Thanks. I graduated 3 months ago and this has been a huge help.

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#84

Post by totallymike »

noosphr wrote: post #77
totallymike wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

Onboarding a new contributor implies you’re investing time into someone you’re confident will pay off over the long run as an asset to the project. Reviewing LLM slop doesn’t grant any of that, you’re just plugging thumbs into cracks in the glass until the slop-generating contributor gets bored and moves on to another project or feels like they got what they wanted, and then moves on to another project.

I accept that some projects allow this, and if they invite it, I guess I can’t say anything other than “good luck,” but to me it feels like long odds that any one contributor who starts out eager to make others wade through enough code to generate that many comments purely as a one-sided learning exercise will continue to remain invested in this project to the point where I feel glad to have invested in this particular pedagogy.

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#85

Post by h4ny »

jjmarr wrote: post #76
totallymike wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

> I didn't make a decision on the tradeoff, the LLVM community did. I also disclosed it in the PR.

That's not what the GP mean. Just because a community doesn't disallow something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

> I also try to mitigate the code review burden by doing as much review as possible on my end

That's great but...

> & flagging what I don't understand.

It's absurd to me that people should commit code they don't understand. That is the problem. Just because you are allowed to commit AI-generated/assisted code does not mean that you should commit code that you don't understand.

The overhead to others of committing code that you don't understand then ask someone to review is a lot higher than asking someone for directions first so you can understand the problem and code you write.

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

That's just not the point.

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#86

Post by AdieuToLogic »

perching_aix wrote: post #71
AdieuToLogic wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>> 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 ...

Clearly I was referencing LLM's being something to foment "an activist movement" in an attempt to de-escalate the implication of there being some kind of "anti-LLM activist movement."

> ... but people who are against LLMs in whatever capacity. Surely people can be participants of a movement.

At this point your replies to my posts appear to be intentionally adversarial.

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#87

Post by perching_aix »

AdieuToLogic wrote: post #86
perching_aix wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>> 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 ... Clearly I was referencing LLM's being something to foment "an activist movement" in an attempt to…

> Clearly I was referencing LLM's being something to foment "an activist movement" in an attempt to de-escalate the implication of there being some kind of "anti-LLM activist movement."

Well, no, that really wasn't clear to me at all. I don't think it was clear in general either.

> At this point your replies to my posts appear to be intentionally adversarial.

Not my actual intention, apologies, although I 100% understand if at this point that is not at all believable.

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#88

Post by attentive »

dizlexic wrote: post #56

This might get me in trouble, but with all the negativity I’m seeing here I’ve got to ask. Why do you care? Their sandbox their rules, and if you care because you want to contribute you’re still free to do so. Unless you’re an LLM I guess, but the rest of us should have no problem. The negativity just seems overblown. More power to them, and if this was a bad call they’ll revisit it.

> and if this was a bad call they’ll revisit it.

how would they know? - this is (one of) the ways for people to let them know

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#89

Post by totallymike »

noosphr wrote: post #77
totallymike wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

Unrelated to my other point, I absolutely get wanting to lower barriers, but let’s not forget that templeOS was the religious vanity project of someone who could have had a lot to teach us if not for mental health issues that were extant early enough in the roots of the project as to poison the well of knowledge to be found there. And he didn’t just “move on,” he died.

While I legitimately do find templeOS to be a fascinating project, I don’t think there was anything to learn from it at a computer science level other than “oh look, an opinionated 64-bit operating environment that feels like classical computing and had a couple novel ideas”

I respect that instances like it are demonstrably few and far between, but don’t entertain its legacy far beyond that.

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#90

Post by h4ny »

puilp0502 wrote: post #80

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 r…

You just stop accepting contributions from them?

There is nothing inherently different about these policies that make them more or less difficult to enforce than other kinds of polices.

Post reply on HN