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

Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy

jellyfin.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 112 posts

Re: Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy

#21

Post by bjackman »

ChristianJacobs wrote: post #6

This seems fair, tbh. And I fully agree on the policy for issues/discussions/PRs. I know there will probably be a whole host of people from non-English-speaking countries who will complain that they are only using AI to translate because English is not their first (or maybe even second) language. To those I will just say: I would much rather read your non-native English, knowing you put thought and care into what you…

I think the spirit of the policy also allows you to write your own words in your own language and have an AI translate it.

(But also, for a majority of people old fashioned Google Translate works great).

(Edit: it's actually a explicit carveout)

Re: Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy

#22

Post by ChristianJacobs »

nabbed wrote: post #10
ChristianJacobs wrote: post #6

This seems fair, tbh. And I fully agree on the policy for issues/discussions/PRs. I know there will probably be a whole host of people from non-English-speaking countries who will complain that they are only using AI to translate because English is not their first (or maybe even second) language. To those I will just say: I would much rather read your non-native English, knowing you put thought and care into what you…

Although: "An exception will be made for LLM-assisted translations if you are having trouble accurately conveying your intent in English."

I am quite obviously blind, but I still stand by my sentiment. I would rather have a "bad" but honest PR body than a machine translated one where the author isn't sure about what it says. How will you know if what it says is what you meant?

Re: Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy

#24

Post by bjackman »

JaggedJax wrote: post #18

I'm not sure when this policy was introduced, but fairly recently Jellyfin released a pretty major update that introduced a lot of bugs and performance issues. I've been watching their issue tracker as they work through them and have noticed it's flooded with LLM generated PRs and obviously LLM generated PR comments/descriptions/replies. A lot of the LLM generated PRs are a mishmash of 2-8 different issues all jumble…

I have lately taken to this approach when I raise bugs:

1. Fully human-written explanation of the issue with all the info I can add

2. As an attachment to the bug (not a PR), explicitly noted as such, an AI slop fix and a note that it makes my symptom go away.

I've been on the receiving end of one bug report in this format and I thought it was pretty helpful. Even though the AI fix was garbage, the fact that the patch made the bug go away was useful signal.

Re: Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy

#25

Post by Gigachad »

adastra22 wrote: post #13
hamdingers wrote: post #2

> LLM output is expressly prohibited for any direct communication I would like to see this more. As a heavy user of LLMs I still write 100% of my own communication. Do not send me something an LLM wrote, if I wanted to read LLM outputs, I would ask an LLM.

I’m glad they have a carve out for using LLMs to translate to, or fix up English communications. LLMs are a great accessibility tool that is making open source development truly global. Translation and grammar fix up is something LLMs are very, very good at! But that is translation, not “please generate a pull request message for these changes.”

Better to use Google Translate for this than ChatGPT. Either ChatGPT massively changes the text and slopifies it, or people are lying about using it for translation only because the outputs are horrendous. Google Translate won't fluff out the output with garbage or reformat everything with emoji.

Re: Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy

#26

Post by Gigachad »

JaggedJax wrote: post #18

I'm not sure when this policy was introduced, but fairly recently Jellyfin released a pretty major update that introduced a lot of bugs and performance issues. I've been watching their issue tracker as they work through them and have noticed it's flooded with LLM generated PRs and obviously LLM generated PR comments/descriptions/replies. A lot of the LLM generated PRs are a mishmash of 2-8 different issues all jumble…

The open for anyone PR model might be at risk now. How can maintainers be expected to review unlimited slop coming in. I can see a lot of open source just giving up on allowing community contribution. Or maybe only allowing trusted members to contribute after they have demonstrated more than passing interest in the project.

Re: Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy

#27

Post by anthonypasq »

darkwater wrote: post #20
antirez wrote: post #16

Good AI policies (like this one) can be spotted since the TLDR is "Don't submit shitty code". As such, good AI policies should be replaced by "Contribution policies" that says "Don't submit shitty code".

I think the gist and the "virality" of this policy is: 1) we accept good quality LLM code 2) we DO NOT accept LLM generated human interaction, including PR explanation 3) your PR must explain well enough the change in the description Which summed together are far more than "no shitty code". It's rather no shitty code that YOU understand

> 1) we accept good quality LLM code

there is no such thing as LLM code. code is code, the same standards have always applied no matter who or what wrote it. if you paid an indian guy to type out the PR for you 10 years ago, but it was submitted under your name, its still your responsibility.

Re: Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy

#28

Post by mort96 »

adastra22 wrote: post #13
hamdingers wrote: post #2

> LLM output is expressly prohibited for any direct communication I would like to see this more. As a heavy user of LLMs I still write 100% of my own communication. Do not send me something an LLM wrote, if I wanted to read LLM outputs, I would ask an LLM.

I’m glad they have a carve out for using LLMs to translate to, or fix up English communications. LLMs are a great accessibility tool that is making open source development truly global. Translation and grammar fix up is something LLMs are very, very good at! But that is translation, not “please generate a pull request message for these changes.”

Why would you want to use a chat bot to translate? Either you know the source and destination language, in which case you'll almost certainly do a better job (certainly a more trustworthy job), or you don't, in which case you shouldn't be handling translations for that language anyway.

Same with grammar fixes. If you don't know the language, why are you submitting grammar changes??

Re: Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy

#29

Post by lifetimerubyist »

Hamuko wrote: post #23
lifetimerubyist wrote: post #4

> Violating this rule will result in closure/deletion of the offending item(s). Should just be an instant perma-ban (along with closure, obviously).

Seems a bit disproportionate. I'd say that's more of a "repeat offender" type of solution.

Whats disproportionate is the mountains of slop out there and the amount of people think they can just sling slop for cheap online cred.

Re: Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy

#30

Post by MarsIronPI »

mort96 wrote: post #28
adastra22 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m glad they have a carve out for using LLMs to translate to, or fix up English communications. LLMs are a great accessibility tool that is making open source development truly global. Translation and grammar fix up is something LLMs are very, very good at! But that is translation, not “please generate a pull request message for these changes.”

Why would you want to use a chat bot to translate? Either you know the source and destination language, in which case you'll almost certainly do a better job (certainly a more trustworthy job), or you don't, in which case you shouldn't be handling translations for that language anyway. Same with grammar fixes. If you don't know the language, why are you submitting grammar changes??

No, I think GP means grammar fixes to your own communication. For example if I don't speak Japanese very well and I want to write to you in Japanese, I might write you a message in Japanese, then ask an LLM to fix up my grammar and check my writing to make sure I'm not sounding like a complete idiot.
Post reply on HN