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

Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK

app.dealroom.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 395 posts

Re: Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK

#361

Post by bzzzt »

nnevatie wrote: post #351
KronisLV wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why, people? As someone who's had to use the Oracle database and also Oracle Linux on servers, beats me. Also stuff like Oracle ADF and JDeveloper and JBoss/WildFly, no thank you. I seriously hope someone got bribed to choose Oracle cause it doesn't make sense otherwise, at least then they would have gotten something good out of it. The closest thing to an actual argument I've heard was wanting paid support - in wh…

Ahhaha. JBoss, the glorified web-app server that booted for tens of minutes. It was the peak of Java-based over-engineering.

And it's not even an Oracle product. If you want that from them you need WebLogic.

To be fair, recent versions of JBoss/Wildfly removed a lot of the bloat and boot within seconds. Startup time is mostly due to application frameworks nowadays.

Re: Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK

#362

Post by DarkNova6 »

linuxhansl wrote: post #260

Disclaimer: I use AI at work and for some projects at home and find it really useful (as long as you know when and how to use it) With that said... It's funny how we went from "vibe coding" to review burden, sloppy contributions, copyright issues, unclear ownership (as in: who will fix bugs), needlessly verbose code, etc, etc. Several projects have banned AI contributions now and counting. As I said, I use AI to help…

The problem is primarily social. When code is cheap and entry barriers don't exist, how do you filter what is valuable?

For private projects, being able to code things quickly is a godsent. Also for professional environments with clear rules and mutual respect, this can be solved. But on the internet, with people you don't know? You must have some hard barriers.

Re: Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK

#363

Post by mietek »

listenallyall wrote: post #358
tsimionescu wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is paying for someone to have fun with the intention that they will then do business with you not a kickback? Just because you're not getting cash doesn't mean it's not a bribe.

It's a meeting, a sales pitch, that takes place on a golf course. No different than over a meal, or at a sporting event. A kickback, by definition, only happens after the deal is closed, the recipient of the funds "kicks back" some of the revenue (or his commission) to the decision maker. If hasn't progressed beyond "the intention that they will do business with you" then it can't be a kickback.

Keep telling yourself that.

Re: Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK

#364

Post by grokcodec »

jerf wrote: post #73

Oracle, the law firm with a tech business attached, probably wants to retain the option to sue other people for AI-washing their proprietary code, and that doesn't work if they're also publicly accepting AI contributions to their code with no apparent concern for the provenance of it. The tech business would probably tell them this isn't going to be a needle they are going to be able to successfully thread, but the l…

It isn't known as One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison for nothing.

Re: Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK

#365

Post by bdelmas »

tsimionescu wrote: post #357
listenallyall wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it a kickback to invite someone to play golf? A kickback would be if he handed him a big check in the locker room. Take it easy dude, it's business, kickback or not certainly isn't "evil".

How is paying for someone to have fun with the intention that they will then do business with you not a kickback? Just because you're not getting cash doesn't mean it's not a bribe.

Someone got a lot of those kickbacks…

Re: Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK

#366

Post by tsimionescu »

listenallyall wrote: post #358
tsimionescu wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is paying for someone to have fun with the intention that they will then do business with you not a kickback? Just because you're not getting cash doesn't mean it's not a bribe.

It's a meeting, a sales pitch, that takes place on a golf course. No different than over a meal, or at a sporting event. A kickback, by definition, only happens after the deal is closed, the recipient of the funds "kicks back" some of the revenue (or his commission) to the decision maker. If hasn't progressed beyond "the intention that they will do business with you" then it can't be a kickback.

What happens here is that the buyer "kicks back" a fat contract to their sales buddy who took them to that great golf resort. Or, if the terminology is wrong, you can just say that the sales agent bribed the buyer with a golf trip in order to get the contract on better terms, to the detriment of they buyer's company. Either way, golf games paid for by people trying to sell something are obviously morally and ethically wrong, and would be extremely illegal if they happened with a government employee.

Re: Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK

#367

Post by bdelmas »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #307
wolfi1 wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nobody has ever been fired for using Oracle

I'd fire someone for using Oracle. I'd put it in the employee handbook. I bet Oxide would too.

I would too and I have declined jobs everywhere they used their tech and it was not because they had to. And even then, unless it’s like Google and such I am very reluctant.

No thanks!

Re: Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK

#368

Post by elias_t »

inigyou wrote: post #350
elias_t wrote: post #78

How do you even enforce such policy?

How would you enforce it on your project?

I'd say by checking the code myself but at the end of the day it's just about trust. Codeberg is facing the same issue, it's all about human reports and common sense, but there aren't bulletproof solution to this problem. Maybe a prompt injection somewhere.

Re: Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK

#369

Post by tsimionescu »

vovavili wrote: post #210
ActorNightly wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oracle Java is also basically effectively in KTLO mode. The biggest use of Java currently is Android, and Google is on a path to migrate to Fuchsia eventually. The second biggest use is Apache Spark/Kafka, but with LLMs now, you can pretty much re implement all of that functionality in pure C. They just want a legal angle, since this is how they make most of their money.

>The second biggest use is Apache Spark/Kafka, but with LLMs now, you can pretty much re implement all of that functionality in pure C. Spark is written in Scala, precisely because distributed systems are best modelled as a set of pure functions with minimal references to state. This is also why part of the reason why it's ascending successor, Polars Cloud, is written in a functional language, Rust, rather than C. An…

The post is about the OpenJDK, not Java the language per se. Which applies to Scala, Kotlin, JPython, and others.

Re: Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK

#370

Post by xxs »

inigyou wrote: post #341
xxs wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it has left the “move fast and break things java never had that phase. If anything it had a full binary class (not even source, e.g. long and int are not compatible on binary level) compatibility. Generally you can take an application from '98 and run it nowadays. It's only recent changes (jigsaw in java9 mostly) that were made them to drop some of that part.

> (not even source, e.g. long and int are not compatible on binary level) What did you mean by this?

if you have a method "void x(int i)", and change it to "void x(long i)", it will cause NoSuchMethodError if the code is not recompiled, i.e. if it's a dependency on a jar file. Likewise when there were methods in URLConnection that returned (or take) int for content-length, it would not be possible to convert them to long by just changing the existing signatures.

The same applies to having a method "void x(String s)", it cannot be changed to "void x(Object s)" (even though all the code would compile with auto downcast) but both methods have to co-exist being overloaded. There is more to the binary compatibility but I'd leave it here.

The way to do it is keeping the existing public (and protected) methods (&fields), possibly deprecating them, along with introducing new ones. Effectively any removal of anything that has been made accessible, public mostly, is forbidden.

Personally, whenever I had to maintain library code I stuck to the same principle, so folks could grab a new version w/o worrying or doing any changes on their own.

Post reply on HN