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

We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

samsaffron.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 161 posts

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#31

Post by jrochkind1 »

andai wrote: post #29

>That said, there is a trend among many developers of banning AI. Some go so far as to say “AI not welcome here” find another project. >This feels extremely counterproductive and fundamentally unenforceable to me. Much of the code AI generates is indistinguishable from human code anyway. You can usually tell a prototype that is pretending to be a human PR, but a real PR a human makes with AI assistance can be indisti…

Well, but why not instead of asking/accepting people will lie undetectably when you say "No AI" and it's okay you're fine with lying, just say instead "Only AI when you spend the time to turn it into a real reviewed PR, which looks like X, Y, and Z", giving some actual tips on how to use AI acceptably. Which is what OP suggests.

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#32

Post by mattlondon »

Toby1VC wrote: post #13

Nice jewish word mostly meant to mock. Why would I care what a plugin that I don't even see in use has to say to my face (since I had to read this with all the interpretation potential and receptiveness available). The same kind of inserted judgment that lingers similar to "Yes, I will judge you if you use AI".

Which word? Slop? I think it is from medieval old English if that is the word you are referring to.

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#33

Post by deadbunny »

Bengalilol wrote: post #7

Shouldn't there be guidelines for open source projects where it is clearly stipulated that code submitted for review must follow the project's code format and conventions?

As if people read guidelines. Sure they're good to have so you can point to them when people violate them but people (in general) will not by default read them before contributing.

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#34

Post by felipeerias »

andai wrote: post #29

>That said, there is a trend among many developers of banning AI. Some go so far as to say “AI not welcome here” find another project. >This feels extremely counterproductive and fundamentally unenforceable to me. Much of the code AI generates is indistinguishable from human code anyway. You can usually tell a prototype that is pretending to be a human PR, but a real PR a human makes with AI assistance can be indisti…

Personally, I would not contribute to a project that forced me to lie.

And from the point of view of the maintainers, it seems a terrible idea to set up rules with the expectation that they will be broken.

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#35

Post by BigTTYGothGF »

Toby1VC wrote: post #13

Nice jewish word mostly meant to mock. Why would I care what a plugin that I don't even see in use has to say to my face (since I had to read this with all the interpretation potential and receptiveness available). The same kind of inserted judgment that lingers similar to "Yes, I will judge you if you use AI".

> Nice jewish word

"Slop" doesn't seem to be Yiddish: https://www.etymonline.com/word/slop, and even if it was, so what?

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#36

Post by wat10000 »

darkwater wrote: post #16

The title doesn't make justice to the content. I really liked the paragraph about LLMs being "alien intelligence" > Many engineers I know fall into 2 camps, either the camp that find the new class of LLMs intelligent, groundbreaking and shockingly good. In the other camp are engineers that think of all LLM generated content as “the emperor’s new clothes”, the code they generate is “naked”, fundamentally flawed and po…

I’m reminded of Dijkstra: “The question of whether machines can think is about as relevant as the question of whether submarines can swim.”

These new submarines are a lot closer to human swimming than the old ones were, but they’re still very different.

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#37

Post by BigTTYGothGF »

colesantiago wrote: post #18
theultdev wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> reducing the number of needed engineers at my business > code is getting less and less important in our team > the engineers aren't complaining lays off engineers for ai trained off of other engineer's code and says code is less important and engineers aren't complaining.

Um, yes? They can focus on other things that are more impactful in the business rather than just slinging code all day, they can actually look at design and the product! Maximum headcount for engineers is around 7, no more than that now. I used to have 20, but with AI we don't need that many for our size.

> Maximum headcount for engineers is around 7, no more than that now. I used to have 20,

If I survived having 65% of my colleagues laid off you'd better believe I wouldn't complain in public.

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#38

Post by sgarland »

andai wrote: post #29

>That said, there is a trend among many developers of banning AI. Some go so far as to say “AI not welcome here” find another project. >This feels extremely counterproductive and fundamentally unenforceable to me. Much of the code AI generates is indistinguishable from human code anyway. You can usually tell a prototype that is pretending to be a human PR, but a real PR a human makes with AI assistance can be indisti…

> I guess the problem is there's no way of knowing that? Is there a Proof of Work for code review?

In a live setting, you could ask the submitter to explain various parts of the code. Async, that doesn’t work, because presumably someone who used AI without disclosing that would do the same for the explanation.

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#39

Post by franktankbank »

mattlondon wrote: post #28

The way we do it is to use AI to review the PR before a human reviewer sees it. Obvious errors, non-consistent patterns, weirdness etc is flagged before it goes any further. "Vibe coded" slop usually gets caught, but "vibe engineered" surgical changes that adhere to common patterns and standards and have tests etc get to be seen by a real live human for their normal review. It's not rocket science.

Do you work at a profitable company?

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#40

Post by sgarland »

colesantiago wrote: post #14
lawn wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so it helps in reducing the number of needed engineers at my business > the engineers aren't complaining You're missing a piece of the puzzle here, Mr business person.

I mean our MRR and ARR is growing so we must be doing something right.

WeWork thought that as well.
Post reply on HN