The LLM ban is unenforceable, they must know this. Is it to scare off the most obvious stuff and have a way to kick people off easily in case of incomplete evidence?
[deleted]
Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy
11–20 of 504 posts
Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy
#12 > any content submitted that is clearly labelled as LLM-generated (including issues, merge requests, and merge request descriptions) will be immediately closed
I have no beef with Redox OS. I wish them well. This feels like the newest form of OSS virtue signaling.
Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy
#13We need LLMs that have a certificate of origin. For instance a GPL LLM trained only on GPL code where the source data is all known, and the output is all GPL. It could be done with a distributed effort.
Not necessarily a bad idea, but I think the bigger issue here and now is the increasing assymmetry in effort between code submitter and reviewer, and the unsustainable review burden on the maintainers if nothing is done.
Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy
#14The LLM ban is unenforceable, they must know this. Is it to scare off the most obvious stuff and have a way to kick people off easily in case of incomplete evidence?
Any sufficiently advanced LLM-slop will be indistinguishable from regular human-slop. But that’s what they are after.
This heuristic lets the project flag problematic slop with minimal investment avoiding the cost issues with reviewing low-quality low-effort high-volume contributions, which should be near ideal.
Much like banning pornography on an artistic photo site, the perfect application on the borderline of the rule is far less important than filtering power “I know it when I see it” provides to the standard case. Plus, smut peddlers aren’t likely to set an OpenClaw bot-agent swarm loose arguing the point with you for days then posting blogs and medium articles attacking you personally for “discrimination”.
Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy
#15The LLM ban is unenforceable, they must know this. Is it to scare off the most obvious stuff and have a way to kick people off easily in case of incomplete evidence?
It is enforceable, I think you mean to say that it cannot be prevented since people can attempt to hide their usage? Most rules and laws are like that, you proscribe some behavior but that doesn't prevent people from doing it. Therefore you typically need to also define punishments:
> This policy is not open to discussion, any content submitted that is clearly labelled as LLM-generated (including issues, merge requests, and merge request descriptions) will be immediately closed, and any attempt to bypass this policy will result in a ban from the project.
Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy
#16Not sure how they can expect to make a viable full OS without massive use of LLMs, so this makes no sense.
What makes sense if that of course any LLM-generated code must be reviewed by a good programmer and must be correct and well written, and the AI usage must be precisely disclosed.
What they should ban is people posting AI-generated code without mentioning it or replying "I don't know, the AI did it like that" to questions.
Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy
#17While I appreciate the morality and ethics of this choice, the current trend means projects going in this direction are making themselves irrelevant (don't bother quipping at how relevant redox is today, thanks). E.g. top security researches are now using LLMs to find new RCEs and local privilege escalations; no reason why the models couldn't fix these, too - and it's only the security surface.
IOW I think this stance is ethically good, but technically irresponsible.
Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy
#18Not sure how they can expect to make a viable full OS without massive use of LLMs, so this makes no sense. What makes sense if that of course any LLM-generated code must be reviewed by a good programmer and must be correct and well written, and the AI usage must be precisely disclosed. What they should ban is people posting AI-generated code without mentioning it or replying "I don't know, the AI did it like that" to…
>Not sure how they can expect to make a viable full OS without massive use of LLMs, so this makes no sense.
Why not?
Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy
#19We need LLMs that have a certificate of origin. For instance a GPL LLM trained only on GPL code where the source data is all known, and the output is all GPL. It could be done with a distributed effort.
I don't think the licensing issues are the main problem, but the spam.
Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy
#20I think we will be getting into an interesting situation soon, where project maintainers use LLMs because they truly are useful in many cases, but will ban contributors for doing so, because they can't review how well did the user guide the LLM.