21–30 of 504 posts
> any content submitted that is clearly labelled as LLM-generated (including issues, merge requests, and merge request descriptions) will be immediately closed Note the word "clearly". Weirdly, as a native English speaker this term makes the policy less strict. What about submarine LLM submissions? I have no beef with Redox OS. I wish them well. This feels like the newest form of OSS virtue signaling.
We 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.
> any content submitted that is clearly labelled as LLM-generated (including issues, merge requests, and merge request descriptions) will be immediately closed Note the word "clearly". Weirdly, as a native English speaker this term makes the policy less strict. What about submarine LLM submissions? I have no beef with Redox OS. I wish them well. This feels like the newest form of OSS virtue signaling.
Not 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?
Not to mention that even finding good developers willing to develop without AI (a significant handicap, even more so for coding things like an OS that are well represented in LLM training) seems difficult nowadays, especially if they aren't paying them.
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?
Just require that the CLA/Certificate of Origin statement be printed out, signed, and mailed with an envelope and stamp, where besides attesting that they appropriately license their contributions ((A)GPL, BSD, MIT, or whatever) and have the authority to do so, that they also attest that they haven't used any LLMs for their contributions. This will strongly deter direct LLM usage. Indirect usage, where people whip up LLM-generated PoCs that they then rewrite, will still probably go on, and go on without detection, but that's less objectionable morally (and legally) than trying to directly commit LLM code.
As an aside, I've noticed a huge drop off in license literacy amongst developers, as well as respect for the license choices of other developers/projects. I can't tell if LLMs caused this, but there's a noticeable difference from the way things were 10 years ago.
Not 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…
Every single production OS, including the one you use right now, was made before LLMs even existed.
> What makes sense if that of course any LLM-generated code must be reviewed by a good programmer
The time of good programmers, especially ones working for free in their spare time on OSS projects, is a limited resource.
The ability to generate slop using LLMs, is effectively unlimited.
This discrepancy can only be resolved in one way: https://itsfoss.com/news/curl-ai-slop/
I 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.
Not 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…
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?
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 reques…