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

LLM Policy for Rust Compiler

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 94 posts

Re: LLM Policy for Rust Compiler

#61

Post by def13 »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #34
DennisL123 wrote: post #21

Does the policy fix the issue of many low quality PRs being submitted? Unlikely. Will it fix a related but different problem? Likely.

The people who submit low quality LLM-generated PRs often don't bother to read the policies first, but at least it will be easier to reject those.

The point here if you read contributor comments is mainly to allow people to shut a PR down without having claims of “unfairness” because some other PR wasn’t shut down. These are “moderation policies” in the style of old internet forums, their primary purpose is to clear up ambiguity and make maintainer’s (moderators) lives easer.

The birth of vibe coding has seen interactions on public FOSS projects increasingly reminiscent of the flame wars and moderator hammers of the old forum days. A lot of projects have been behind the curve on preparing and codifying the hammers, probably because no maintainer really wants to be a moderator, but thats where its naturally landed unfortunately.

Re: LLM Policy for Rust Compiler

#62

Post by jynelson »

pixlmint wrote: post #60

I wonder what will happen once these guidelines end up in the LLM training datasets

if an LLM says "I can't open a PR automatically until you solicit a review from a maintainer", i think that's good actually. likewise for proactively following the rest of the rules.

Re: LLM Policy for Rust Compiler

#63

Post by MaulingMonkey »

bcjdjsndon wrote: post #57
MaulingMonkey wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Like seriously, what's the point of explicitly allowing this? Explicit permission can be useful to preemptively cut off some questions from well meaning people who, acting in good faith, might otherwise pester for clarification (no matter how silly / "obvious" it might otherwise be), or get agitated by misconstruing an all-banned list as being an overly verbose "no LLMs ever" overreach. > It's in-line with the 'nan…

> If you're steeped deeply enough in that NDA-preserving culture, a reminder that you've switched contexts might help when common sense proves uncommon. What?

> If you're steeped deeply enough in that NDA-preserving culture

If you've throroughly absorbed a culture of honoring non disclosure agreements (NDAs), which are legal contracts demanding you keep secrets and avoid sharing sensitive data or code...

> a reminder that you've switched contexts might help

A reminder that rust-lang is a transparent, open source project, with no non-disclosure agreements or trade secrets to keep private unto itself might help [1].

> when common sense proves uncommon.

Because everyone misses the "obvious" sometimes. And because "obvious" is a subjective value judgement, meaning people will disagree what is or is not obvious.

-------

1. That said, if you've got a private, corporate-internal, closed source fork, you might still be bound by such concerns. For example, various people have ported rust's stdlib to work on various consoles (xbox, playstation, etc.) - and one of the reasons you don't see that upstreamed is because doing so would require violating console vendor NDAs, as well as possibly their company's NDAs - possibly for such banal reasons as not wanting to leak a hint of a console port or new title before their marketing plans are ready to go to capitilize on any hype.

Re: LLM Policy for Rust Compiler

#64

Post by bcjdjsndon »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #52
tick_tock_tick wrote: post #42

Some of these are just straight up unhinged. > Using an LLM to discover bugs, as long as you personally verify the bug, write it up yourself, and disclose that an LLM was used. What are they going to do go back and reject a bug if someone later admits they found it with an LLM? Honestly they and most other project would probably be better off just ignoring the situation until norms start developing.

They're trying to avoid a Boy Who Cried Wolf situation. If they get swamped with 100 bugs that turned out, after they investigate them to be hallucinations then it's likely they will ignore or lose in the noise a real bug. A llm generated bug that pretends it was a human created bug would be trying to abuse that presumption of validity, and therefore considered a dick move.

> If they get swamped with 100 bugs that turned out, after they investigate them to be hallucinations then it's likely they will ignore or lose in the noise a real bug.

But theyre saying if they're 100 correct bug reports it's still banned.

That's hysterical

That's the baby out with the bathwater.

Re: LLM Policy for Rust Compiler

#65

Post by bcjdjsndon »

kouteiheika wrote: post #22
mw888 wrote: post #18

Here are the actual policies, not a comment: https://github.com/jyn514/rust-forge/blob/llm-policy/src/pol... It's in-line with the 'nanny' stereotype of the Rust community that they give you permission to act in a way they would never be able to verify anyways: > The following are allowed. > Asking an LLM questions about an existing codebase. > Asking an LLM to summarize comments on an issue, PR, or RFC... Like serio…

> Like seriously, what's the point of explicitly allowing this? Imagine the opposite were true, you weren't allowed to do this - what would they do? Imagine if they just say "LLMs are banned" then there's a lot of ambiguity. So they specifically outlined that generative uses of LLMs are banned, and that non-generative ones are not banned (i.e. "allowed"). I think it's a poor choice of words on their part, but it make…

Y tho? It's already bad enough a programming language wants to play politics (doesn't matter what my politics are if I want to code in the c "community"), now they're taking purely emotional stances like "AI evil"

Re: LLM Policy for Rust Compiler

#66

Post by singularity2001 »

staticassertion wrote: post #39

This policy is straightforward and shouldn't be particularly controversial (I'm sure it will be bikeshedded to death though). It basically bans the obvious stuff ("don't just drop LLM generated comments onto PRs") and allows the important stuff like LLMs writing code so long as you disclose. edit: Wow people did not read the policy. It's literally just "if you use an LLM you are responsible for it, we will reject low…

"allows the important stuff like LLMs writing code so long as you disclose."

Are you sure? It says:

"It's fine to use LLMs to answer questions, analyze, distill, refine, check, suggest, review. But not to *create*."

Re: LLM Policy for Rust Compiler

#67

Post by bcjdjsndon »

saghm wrote: post #24
kouteiheika wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Like seriously, what's the point of explicitly allowing this? Imagine the opposite were true, you weren't allowed to do this - what would they do? Imagine if they just say "LLMs are banned" then there's a lot of ambiguity. So they specifically outlined that generative uses of LLMs are banned, and that non-generative ones are not banned (i.e. "allowed"). I think it's a poor choice of words on their part, but it make…

If anything, it reads to me as a proactive rebuttal of complaints that they don't allow LLMs; they're definitively stating that they do allow using them for very specific purposes.

Needs to be "solicited" from a senior dev. How many requests for ai code do you think they will be making?

Re: LLM Policy for Rust Compiler

#68

Post by bcjdjsndon »

saagarjha wrote: post #49
tick_tock_tick wrote: post #42

Some of these are just straight up unhinged. > Using an LLM to discover bugs, as long as you personally verify the bug, write it up yourself, and disclose that an LLM was used. What are they going to do go back and reject a bug if someone later admits they found it with an LLM? Honestly they and most other project would probably be better off just ignoring the situation until norms start developing.

The assumption here is that people act in good faith. If you break the rules, this indicates that you are not acting in good faith, and perhaps should no longer be welcome.

Sounds very welcoming. I came here for the code, not to join some social club

Re: LLM Policy for Rust Compiler

#69

Post by bcjdjsndon »

jynelson wrote: post #62
pixlmint wrote: post #60

I wonder what will happen once these guidelines end up in the LLM training datasets

if an LLM says "I can't open a PR automatically until you solicit a review from a maintainer", i think that's good actually. likewise for proactively following the rest of the rules.

It's not the submitter who solicits, but the reviewer. They can't give code, AND THEN get approval, they need to be asked specifically for an llm created PR.

Re: LLM Policy for Rust Compiler

#70

Post by bcjdjsndon »

def13 wrote: post #61
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people who submit low quality LLM-generated PRs often don't bother to read the policies first, but at least it will be easier to reject those.

The point here if you read contributor comments is mainly to allow people to shut a PR down without having claims of “unfairness” because some other PR wasn’t shut down. These are “moderation policies” in the style of old internet forums, their primary purpose is to clear up ambiguity and make maintainer’s (moderators) lives easer. The birth of vibe coding has seen interactions on public FOSS projects increasingly re…

> probably because no maintainer really wants to be a moderator, but thats where its naturally landed unfortunately.

Yeah this is autistic bunk. If you run an open source project, dealing with people is part and parcel of it, disagreements as well.

Post reply on HN