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

41–50 of 74 posts

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

#41

Post by matheusmoreira »

jynelson wrote: post #38
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...

I see. Very reasonable policy. Thank you!

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

#42

Post by nasso_dev »

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…

imho disclosing use of LLMs is just being transparent and honest. is it that hard? deliberately hiding this should absolutely get you in trouble, because trust is the most important thing to have in open-source

as you probably have seen in TFA, the policy does not ban LLM usage. its just asking for disclosure so that maintainers know how much effort was put in a PR

and, please, open-source maintainers owe us nothing. refusing to merge a patch is not the same as cops searching your car. this is merely maintainers trying to evaluate how they should spend their precious time

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

#43

Post by matheusmoreira »

nasso_dev wrote: post #42
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…

imho disclosing use of LLMs is just being transparent and honest. is it that hard? deliberately hiding this should absolutely get you in trouble, because trust is the most important thing to have in open-source as you probably have seen in TFA, the policy does not ban LLM usage. its just asking for disclosure so that maintainers know how much effort was put in a PR and, please, open-source maintainers owe us nothing.…

I agree with you that trust and transparency are important, but please understand that disclosure is not a simple matter.

There is stigma surrounding LLM usage. There are consequences. Disclosing can lead to harassment and direct harm to one's reputation. I've been called "slop fetishist" and "clanker lover" before.

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

#44

Post by jynelson »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #41
jynelson wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

I see. Very reasonable policy. Thank you!

you're very welcome!

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

#45

Post by jynelson »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #43
nasso_dev wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

imho disclosing use of LLMs is just being transparent and honest. is it that hard? deliberately hiding this should absolutely get you in trouble, because trust is the most important thing to have in open-source as you probably have seen in TFA, the policy does not ban LLM usage. its just asking for disclosure so that maintainers know how much effort was put in a PR and, please, open-source maintainers owe us nothing.…

I agree with you that trust and transparency are important, but please understand that disclosure is not a simple matter. There is stigma surrounding LLM usage. There are consequences. Disclosing can lead to harassment and direct harm to one's reputation. I've been called "slop fetishist" and "clanker lover" before.

yes. there's a reason there's exactly two things in the policy that are marked as moderation consequences and they're directly next to each other. "no harassment" doesn't work if people are paranoid that any PR could be LLM slop, and "disclosure is required" doesn't work if people are worried about harassment. you need both, and you need them to go into force at the same time.

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

#46

Post by matheusmoreira »

jynelson wrote: post #45
matheusmoreira wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you that trust and transparency are important, but please understand that disclosure is not a simple matter. There is stigma surrounding LLM usage. There are consequences. Disclosing can lead to harassment and direct harm to one's reputation. I've been called "slop fetishist" and "clanker lover" before.

yes. there's a reason there's exactly two things in the policy that are marked as moderation consequences and they're directly next to each other. "no harassment" doesn't work if people are paranoid that any PR could be LLM slop, and "disclosure is required" doesn't work if people are worried about harassment. you need both, and you need them to go into force at the same time.

Completely agree. Making harassment of LLM users explicitly against the rules was very welcome. It's something I haven't seen in other LLM policies. It instantly gained my respect.

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

#48

Post by winstonwinston »

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…

You can’t be upset because they want to know the truth, seriously. When a project has concerns about generated code, it is for a reason.

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

#49

Post by m4xp »

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…

Disclosure can't go away, i dont care if you say which model you used. But i think it's within any project rights to not accept any llm assisted contributions.

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

#50

Post by matheusmoreira »

m4xp wrote: post #49
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…

Disclosure can't go away, i dont care if you say which model you used. But i think it's within any project rights to not accept any llm assisted contributions.

The disclosure is fine, it's this stigma surrounding LLMs that is a problem.
Post reply on HN