121–130 of 206 posts
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.
Any contributer, wether openly using AI or covertly, should be reputed by earned merit of the contribution history.
Yes, I know there are still holdouts that realy do not use AI, but that number is shrinking rapidly. A no AI policy when strictly enforced (how?) would probably just lead to project EoL.
There are reasonable ethical concerns one may have with AI (around data center impacts on communities, and the labor used to SFT and RLHF them), but these aren't: > Commercial AI projects are frequently indulging in blatant copyright violations to train their models. I thought we (FOSS) were anti copyright? > Their operations are causing concerns about the huge use of energy and water. This is massively overblown. If…
>I thought we (FOSS) were anti copyright? FOSS still has to exist within the rules of the system the planet operates under. You can't just say "I downloaded that movie, but I'm a Linux user so I don't believe in copyright" and get away with it >the overall energy and water usage of AI contributed to by the actual individual use of AI to, for instance, generate a PR, is completely negligible on the scale of tech produ…
10 GPT prompts take the same energy as a wifi router operating for 30 minutes.
If Gentoo were so concerned for the environment, they would have more mileage forbidding PRs from people who took a 10 hour flight. These flights, per person, emit as much carbon as a million prompts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. However, in some cases (though probably not the ones relevant here) a definition can be proven to be incoherent (or, to presuppose something false), which is vaguely similar to “being false”.
It would be difficult for a definition to make any presuppositions. You could have a definition that defines some set in which a contradiction is involved ("an integer is special if it is both prime and divisible by 4"), but then you'd say that the set so defined is empty, not that the definition is incoherent.
As a simple example, suppose X is a set and r is a relation on X. If I define Y := X/r , the set of equivalence relations with respect to r, this implicitly assumes that the relation r is an equivalence relation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Only downside is my last psychiatrist dropped me as a patient when he left his practice to start an AI company providing regulatory compliance for, essentially, Dr. ChatGPT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 cod…
> 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…
We should stop doing those things too. I'm still surprised that so many people are flying.
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…
How well does that scale as the number of such contributions increases and the triage process itself becomes a sizable effort?
LLMs can inadvertently create a sort of DDoS even with the best intentions, and mitigating it costs something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 cod…
The industrywide tsunami of tech debt arising from AI detritus[1] will be interesting to watch. Tech leadership is currently drunk on improved productivity metrics (via lines of code or number of PRs), but I bet velocity will slow down, and products be more brittle due to extraneous AI-generated, with a lag, so it won't be immediately apparent. Only teams with rigorous reviews will fare well in the long term, but may be punished in the short term for "not being as productive" as others.
1. From personal observation: when I'm in a hurry, I accept code that does more than is necessary to meet the requirements, or is merely not succinct. Where as pre-AI, less code would be merged with a "TBD" tacked on