My point is you might be when you wrote your comment or I might be in writing this comment. However, I don't know if I am as I haven't seen, and will likely never see, the implementation behind the text box that is suggesting the next letter, word, or spelling correction as I type.
Can you point at a specific spell checker that is known to use an LLM?
"A Simple yet Effective Training-free Prompt-free Approach to Chinese Spelling Correction Based on Large Language Models"[1]
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…
I don't think we're approaching the limit of deterministic prompt -> source code mapping any time soon. Small variability in prompts produces medium variability in outputs. Building on previous outputs only extends the variability, where behavioral differences start appearing a few prompts down the line. And the AI companies aren't focused on making this process any more deterministic, where repeated prompts are samp…
There’s another issue where models and transparent wrappers around models that get exposed are shifting around often. Versioning is highly questionable, and not all closed models will be supported indefinitely… so determinism becomes highly questionable at a purely prompt level.
I don't think we're approaching the limit of deterministic prompt -> source code mapping any time soon. Small variability in prompts produces medium variability in outputs. Building on previous outputs only extends the variability, where behavioral differences start appearing a few prompts down the line. And the AI companies aren't focused on making this process any more deterministic, where repeated prompts are samp…
There’s another issue where models and transparent wrappers around models that get exposed are shifting around often. Versioning is highly questionable, and not all closed models will be supported indefinitely… so determinism becomes highly questionable at a purely prompt level.
Oh, I didn't even consider this. Now that you mentioned it, I wouldn't be surprised if the stochasticity is intentional so users don't treat it as deterministic, and the company is allowed to continuously update the model (or even a small part of its weights, perhaps to fix/censor something?).
Can you point at a specific spell checker that is known to use an LLM?
"A Simple yet Effective Training-free Prompt-free Approach to Chinese Spelling Correction Based on Large Language Models"[1] [1] https://aclanthology.org/2024.emnlp-main.966/
That's a research paper. Can you point to a single product that claims they use an LLM for their spellchecker? With today's investor market, surly that would be something a company would brag about.
> 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. All of that are even more reasons to reject AI-generated code: if it cannot be trusted to produce same (or even similar) out…
This is why I have been asking to fire product owners. Givven the same input, but different software engineers working with them, they can produce different output (code).
It's worse than that! Even when the product managers inputs to the engineers are constrained for many problems no two engineers will produce consistent results! In fact recent studies suggest that even the same engineer may produce different results based on mood, if they've had coffee yet, and how near to EOD it is.
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.
How do you enforce the law against murder?
Mostly after the fact when people get caught. It's hard to enforce is rarely a good argument against a rule.
"A Simple yet Effective Training-free Prompt-free Approach to Chinese Spelling Correction Based on Large Language Models"[1] [1] https://aclanthology.org/2024.emnlp-main.966/
That's a research paper. Can you point to a single product that claims they use an LLM for their spellchecker? With today's investor market, surly that would be something a company would brag about.
This wasn't your original question, which I answered.
This "moving the goalposts", requiring me to know the internals of say a closed source product, just proves my original point. I can't know if an LLM is being used because I don't have the source code.
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.
this is the unintentional HN humor i come here for
> 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.
How do you enforce the law against murder? Mostly after the fact when people get caught. It's hard to enforce is rarely a good argument against a rule.
Catching a murderer is much, *much* easier than catching someone using a modern AI model to generate code, especially if they actually read it and fix occasional LLMisms, and not just vibecode from the hip. The societal damage is also infinitely more serious in the case of murder.
While I understand the caution, the current policy seems too draconian. It states in part: > Until that policy is in place, the Governing Board has approved this interim policy: > Contributions in the OpenJDK Community must not include content generated, in part or in full, by large language models... Note, this would exclude most spell checkers, as they often are LLM based. That said, they do soften this with the ad…
I think it's pretty clear how this was meant, not sure why you feel the need to split hairs here. I'm certain the intention is this: - spell checkers: ok - '.getC' autocompleting to '.getColor()': ok - 'getC' autocompleting to 'getColor()' + five more lines based on preceding code and documentation: NO.
If the company making this claim were not famously litigious, I would agree with your "good faith" interpretation. They are, unfortunately, famously litigious[1].