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

111–120 of 206 posts

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#111

Post by BrenBarn »

ororroro wrote: post #74
bestham wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I would interpret this as similar to being able to take paper napkins or straws at a restaurant. You may be welcome to take napkins, but if you go around taking all the napkins from every dispenser you'll likely be kicked out and possibly they'll start keeping the napkins behind the counter in the future. Similarly if people start treating "you can contribute AI code to LLVM" as "feel free to submit nonsense you don't understand", I would not be surprised to see LLVM change its stance on the matter.

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#112

Post by WD-42 »

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…

If someone uses an LLM to help them write good code that is indistinguishable from human written code, you are right, it's not enforceable. And that's what most people that are using LLMs should be doing. Unfortunately sometimes it is possible to tell the difference between human and LLM generated code (slop). Policies like this just make it clear and easy to outright reject them.

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#113

Post by thesz »

0000000000100 wrote: post #101
totallymike wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Go look at the PR man, it's pretty clear that he hasn't just dumped out LLM garbage and has put serious effort and understanding into the problem he's trying to solve. It seems a little mean to tell him to stop coding forever when his intentions and efforts seem pretty positive for the health of the project.

One of resolved conversation contains a comment "you should warn about incorrect configuration in constructor, look how it is done in some-other-part-of-code."

This means that he did not put serious effort into understanding what, when and why others do in a highly structured project like LLVM. He "wrote" the code and then dumped "written" code into community to catch mistakes.

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#114

Post by thesz »

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…

  > You might be surprised how many PRs even pre-LLMs had 100+ comments
What about percentages?

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#115

Post by CJefferson »

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…

We do tell bullies not to bully, and then hopefully when they are caught, they are punished. It’s not a perfect system, but better than just ignoring bullying happens.

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#116

Post by Veedrac »

simianwords wrote: post #39
Veedrac wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get why water use is the sort of nonsense that spreads around mainstream social media, but it baffles me how a whole council of nerds would pass a vote on a policy that includes that line.

Because it is ideologically motivated.

Gentoo should be able to be ideological without being stupid.

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#117

Post by MangoToupe »

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 think the project and reviewers are both perfectly capable of making their own decisions about the best use of their own time. No need to act like a dick to someone willing to own up to their own behavior.

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#118

Post by drnick1 »

I don't understand this anti-AI stance. Either the code works and is useful, and it should be accepted, or it doesn't work and it should be rejected. Does it really matter who wrote it?

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#119

Post by globular-toast »

drnick1 wrote: post #118

I don't understand this anti-AI stance. Either the code works and is useful, and it should be accepted, or it doesn't work and it should be rejected. Does it really matter who wrote it?

Putting together and maintaining a GNU/Linux distribution and maintaining it for 23 years requires a bit more than "works for me and is useful".

Re: Gentoo AI Policy

#120

Post by globular-toast »

adastra22 wrote: post #110
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.

I like the idea of Gentoo, and I've considered switching back to it. I won't now, as I don't see a future for it if this is the attitude they take towards new technologies.

This seems like the kind of thing you'd want from a distro. Would you be happy if your doctor just started giving you new drugs because they're "new technology"? Or would you prefer it to go through rigorous rounds of testing and evaluation to figure out the potential problems?
Post reply on HN