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

OpenJDK Interim Policy on Generative AI

openjdk.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 90 posts

Re: OpenJDK Interim Policy on Generative AI

#31

Post by ACCount37 »

abc42 wrote: post #26

My prophecy is that in 3 years we'll see a complete reversal of this. Using GenAI to code will be the default and we'll see policies that put limits on human/artisan development. Possibly even projects that outright ban non-LLM development.

At this point, I wouldn't be too surprised if LLMs just get better at "write understandable, maintainable code" than most developers are.

For now, LLMs are still bad at it, but they're already at "competitive with humans" tier of bad. I expect them to get better.

Re: OpenJDK Interim Policy on Generative AI

#32

Post by Marha01 »

stonogo wrote: post #13
pizlonator wrote: post #7

How do you enforce this?

As best as you can. I don't know why people keep asking this question, when the answer is obvious and exactly like all other contribution policies. In this case, this is coming from Oracle, which holds the OpenJDK purse strings, so being found in violation is also likely to have financial consequences for the violator.

> I don't know why people keep asking this question

Asking how do you enforce a policy that is practically unenforceable is a legitimate question.

Re: OpenJDK Interim Policy on Generative AI

#33

Post by Viliam1234 »

abc42 wrote: post #26

My prophecy is that in 3 years we'll see a complete reversal of this. Using GenAI to code will be the default and we'll see policies that put limits on human/artisan development. Possibly even projects that outright ban non-LLM development.

Why would companies accept AI generated code, it they can generate their own (and review the prompt)?

It's like predicting that when compilers become more popular, accepting binary contributions will become the default.

Re: OpenJDK Interim Policy on Generative AI

#34

Post by rileymichael »

pizlonator wrote: post #7

How do you enforce this?

the same way they currently enforce authors own all copyright in their contributions, via the contributor agreement (OCA). in the real world, people aren’t going to intentionally sneak in LLM-authored code and potentially be legally liable.

Re: OpenJDK Interim Policy on Generative AI

#35

Post by this_user »

Viliam1234 wrote: post #29

This makes sense. AI contribution is basically just "prompt + AI work". Even if you are okay with AI work per se, you should accept prompts (after reviewing them) and let your own AI generate the code (and then also review the code)... rather then accept an output of someone else's AI with an unknown prompt, that may or may not include an instruction to create a vulnerability. In the age of AI, the prompt is becoming…

Not really though, since the result of the prompt is not deterministic. It greatly depends on the model, the version, the harness, even time of day if the provider's infrastructure is currently overloaded and is silently degrading performance. Some things also require multi-turn interactions.

Re: OpenJDK Interim Policy on Generative AI

#36

Post by ToucanLoucan »

grodriguez100 wrote: post #15
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect one of the principle reasons for the blanket decline is specifically that AI generated PRs are already responsible for a substantial uptick in the amount of work required to be done by maintainers. Engaging in discussions about those PRs may be more fulfilling and useful for the developer but it also then increases that work yet again manifold, so that would likely be highly counter-productive. What I don't…

> why can't you then write the solution and PR yourself? You can. The policy explicitly allows you to use AI for understanding the codebase, debugging, etc. It just says “no AI generated content”. So if you use Claude to increase your understanding but then write your own code, that’s fine.

My actual question got a bit lost in my own reply. What I'm really driving at is: Why do people chafe against this?

Re: OpenJDK Interim Policy on Generative AI

#38

Post by NitpickLawyer »

stonogo wrote: post #13
pizlonator wrote: post #7

How do you enforce this?

As best as you can. I don't know why people keep asking this question, when the answer is obvious and exactly like all other contribution policies. In this case, this is coming from Oracle, which holds the OpenJDK purse strings, so being found in violation is also likely to have financial consequences for the violator.

> I don't know why people keep asking this question

Well, because it's going to lead to witch hunts and drama and so on. I mean, not necessarily on this project, but the same-ish discussion is going on on many community based projects (debian was recently on the front page with 4 proposals, etc).

Re: OpenJDK Interim Policy on Generative AI

#39

Post by pennomi »

Viliam1234 wrote: post #29

This makes sense. AI contribution is basically just "prompt + AI work". Even if you are okay with AI work per se, you should accept prompts (after reviewing them) and let your own AI generate the code (and then also review the code)... rather then accept an output of someone else's AI with an unknown prompt, that may or may not include an instruction to create a vulnerability. In the age of AI, the prompt is becoming…

Except prompts aren’t deterministic, source code is.

Re: OpenJDK Interim Policy on Generative AI

#40

Post by kylemart »

this_user wrote: post #35
Viliam1234 wrote: post #29

This makes sense. AI contribution is basically just "prompt + AI work". Even if you are okay with AI work per se, you should accept prompts (after reviewing them) and let your own AI generate the code (and then also review the code)... rather then accept an output of someone else's AI with an unknown prompt, that may or may not include an instruction to create a vulnerability. In the age of AI, the prompt is becoming…

Not really though, since the result of the prompt is not deterministic. It greatly depends on the model, the version, the harness, even time of day if the provider's infrastructure is currently overloaded and is silently degrading performance. Some things also require multi-turn interactions.

100% agree with this. Was about to write the same thing.
Post reply on HN