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

Rust-lang/rust is adopting an LLM policy

blog.rust-lang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 74 posts

Re: Rust-lang/rust is adopting an LLM policy

#31

Post by matheusmoreira »

duskdozer wrote: post #28
LoganDark wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "rustaceans" as one whole. It's a very vocal minority (both rustacean and not) that make it everyone else's problem that they don't agree with the AI industry as a whole. I've had people try to convince me that I'm destroying the planet by using LLMs just because the process of creating the LLM was harmful to the climate. But that's like saying software piracy harms sales. Maybe the argument has more merit f…

If you can understand that some behavior is toxic and should be banned, then you should understand the people behind "cancel culture." Alternatively, if you see "cancelling" "cancel culture" as not "cancel culture", then you can understand the paradox of tolerance, and why an idealistic fully tolerant approach is not possible either way.

Banning someone is not the same as canceling them though.

Banishment is just enforcement of boundaries. It gets rid of a problematic person in a specific space where their behavior is not tolerated. It's about the community, not the banished. Once the troublemaker is gone, that's the end of it. Everyone goes back to their normal activities.

Cancel culture consists of people going out of their way to get a person banned everywhere else and even fired by their employers. People launch entire campaigns against the problematic person and make a concerted effort to ruin their life. Not that different from the Kiwi Farms.

Assertiveness and aggression.

Re: Rust-lang/rust is adopting an LLM policy

#32

Post by weli »

I really dislike every kind of rule that says something along the lines "if it's LLM generated you must self-disclose otherwise it is against the rules". Because this quickly leads to witch hunting and easy persecution of IC's under the pretense "it looks generated by an LLM" or they just investigate you and put you on cooldown from being able to contribute while they check for signs of "LLM-generated code". It's no different than laws giving any officer the right to violate your rights based on flaky probable cause "you have slurred speech therefore I will search your car to see any open containers". This can lead to a soft coup by anti-llm individuals which will make communities slowly drift towards a group of elitists that gatekeep any newcomer.

Re: Rust-lang/rust is adopting an LLM policy

#33

Post by LoganDark »

duskdozer wrote: post #28
LoganDark wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "rustaceans" as one whole. It's a very vocal minority (both rustacean and not) that make it everyone else's problem that they don't agree with the AI industry as a whole. I've had people try to convince me that I'm destroying the planet by using LLMs just because the process of creating the LLM was harmful to the climate. But that's like saying software piracy harms sales. Maybe the argument has more merit f…

If you can understand that some behavior is toxic and should be banned, then you should understand the people behind "cancel culture." Alternatively, if you see "cancelling" "cancel culture" as not "cancel culture", then you can understand the paradox of tolerance, and why an idealistic fully tolerant approach is not possible either way.

Cancel culture is specifically about disparaging groups or individuals, not merely condemning behavior. It has to do with targeted attacks, harassment and defamation. It's absolutely not the same thing as my comment, which merely points out the existence of some behavior and that I disagree with it.

What I'm talking about is the practice of following people around for using AI, rooting around for evidence that a project doesn't fully ban AI, etc. and publicly shaming them, harassing them, attacking them. People who do this don't accept neutrality or even mere skepticism, they demand full unconditional bans or else they make themselves a huge nuisance and try to harm you. That's cancel culture, plain and simple.

Re: Rust-lang/rust is adopting an LLM policy

#34

Post by nirbendavid »

seanhunter wrote: post #5
andsoitis wrote: post #2

In a nutshell: It's fine to use LLMs to answer questions, analyze, distill, refine, check, suggest, review. But not to create.

Yes, and I think the reasons set out in TFA are interesting, which on my reading are: 1) Code is the least interesting bit in some ways - they’re trying to build not only rust but a community of experts around rust which is able to maintain and improve it in the long term and the authors of prs need to understand the code deeply and show a willingness to be part of that long run. Llm-generated code even if it looks p…

[flagged]

Re: Rust-lang/rust is adopting an LLM policy

#35

Post by matheusmoreira »

weli wrote: post #32

I really dislike every kind of rule that says something along the lines "if it's LLM generated you must self-disclose otherwise it is against the rules". Because this quickly leads to witch hunting and easy persecution of IC's under the pretense "it looks generated by an LLM" or they just investigate you and put you on cooldown from being able to contribute while they check for signs of "LLM-generated code". It's no…

I don't disagree with you. I too hate disclosing LLM usage. I hate giving free advertising to trillion dollar corporations. There's also the fact people will probably look down on me for it and assume I'm incompetent because I used an LLM, and I've actually ended up sitting on reviewed and tested patches to open source projects because of this.

However, we should be polite and respect their house rules. They are being reasonable and even made an effort to preempt these exact objections:

> Harassment is not allowed.

> You may not harass people for using an LLM, regardless of whether or not their use is banned by the policy.

> Don’t try to be the police for whether someone has used an LLM. You are not required to “actively look” for whether an LLM was involved.

Re: Rust-lang/rust is adopting an LLM policy

#36

Post by DarkNova6 »

weli wrote: post #32

I really dislike every kind of rule that says something along the lines "if it's LLM generated you must self-disclose otherwise it is against the rules". Because this quickly leads to witch hunting and easy persecution of IC's under the pretense "it looks generated by an LLM" or they just investigate you and put you on cooldown from being able to contribute while they check for signs of "LLM-generated code". It's no…

I don't understand this obsession with clear cut categorization. Systems always have a human component and while we like to collectively deny this fact from a tech-sphere, there are always humans that will make the final call and if anything we should encourage the use of human trust and judgement.

We have focused so much on technological advancement, but our understanding of human systems and building an environment of trust that is not eroded by perverse incentives atrophies.

Re: Rust-lang/rust is adopting an LLM policy

#37

Post by orphea »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #35
weli wrote: post #32

I really dislike every kind of rule that says something along the lines "if it's LLM generated you must self-disclose otherwise it is against the rules". Because this quickly leads to witch hunting and easy persecution of IC's under the pretense "it looks generated by an LLM" or they just investigate you and put you on cooldown from being able to contribute while they check for signs of "LLM-generated code". It's no…

I don't disagree with you. I too hate disclosing LLM usage. I hate giving free advertising to trillion dollar corporations. There's also the fact people will probably look down on me for it and assume I'm incompetent because I used an LLM, and I've actually ended up sitting on reviewed and tested patches to open source projects because of this. However, we should be polite and respect their house rules. They are bein…

> I hate giving free advertising to trillion dollar corporations.

Are you required to tell you used Anthropic™ (or whichever your AI provider of the month is) to generate this code, and not only that *an LLM* was involved?

Re: Rust-lang/rust is adopting an LLM policy

#38

Post by jynelson »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #15

The exact rules on LLM generated code submission live here: https://forge.rust-lang.org/policies/llm-usage.html https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/llm-guidance/writing.h... > Pre-arranged, non-critical, high-quality, well-tested, and well-reviewed code changes that are originally created by an LLM are allowed, with disclosure. They clearly put a lot of thought into this and it shows. Huge respect. > New contributo…

> New contributors do not have community connections. I don't know any rust-lang/rust reviewer.

> What is the correct procedure for this?

there's a #llm-mentoring [0] Zulip stream linked in the dev-guide [1].

[0]: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/join/rlfvpemsaacs3pfi6kwqnqj... [1]: https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/llm-guidance/writing.h...

Re: Rust-lang/rust is adopting an LLM policy

#39

Post by matheusmoreira »

orphea wrote: post #37
matheusmoreira wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with you. I too hate disclosing LLM usage. I hate giving free advertising to trillion dollar corporations. There's also the fact people will probably look down on me for it and assume I'm incompetent because I used an LLM, and I've actually ended up sitting on reviewed and tested patches to open source projects because of this. However, we should be polite and respect their house rules. They are bein…

> I hate giving free advertising to trillion dollar corporations. Are you required to tell you used Anthropic™ (or whichever your AI provider of the month is) to generate this code, and not only that *an LLM* was involved?

A project I wanted to contribute to requried git trailers in the commit message.

  Generated-by: Claude Fable 5

Re: Rust-lang/rust is adopting an LLM policy

#40

Post by ChrisRR »

weli wrote: post #32

I really dislike every kind of rule that says something along the lines "if it's LLM generated you must self-disclose otherwise it is against the rules". Because this quickly leads to witch hunting and easy persecution of IC's under the pretense "it looks generated by an LLM" or they just investigate you and put you on cooldown from being able to contribute while they check for signs of "LLM-generated code". It's no…

I sort of agree, but sort of not. I do agree that any use of AI should be disclosed, but I have also seen some subreddits where the top comments of every post is either raging about the use of AI, or arguing about AI when AI wasn't used.

It's just so tiresome

Post reply on HN