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

Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 482 posts

Re: Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"

#111

Post by frabcus »

edward wrote: post #33

Joey Hess is unimpressed. See https://joeyh.name/blog/entry/Debian_and_the_sirens/

His reasoning is quite fresh and interesting:

> What LLMs in Debian development will do, I fear, is eliminate any incentive to scrap boilerplate or reform policies that require a lot of other senseless human effort. If I had had access to LLMs 30 years ago, I might have just had them generate the rules files, replate with complexity. So they will make Debian even more firmly what it is, and ever less likely to explore what it could become.

I use and like LLMs, but it does feel like structural social changes are harder to do. For example, creation of new protocols. I hope I'm wrong, and LLMs are used to build collaborative, community projects - not just everyone vibe coding their own incompatible software.

Re: Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"

#112

Post by [deleted] »

oooyay wrote: post #23
chuckadams wrote: post #6

New policy boils down to "AI or not, it's still your code and you're responsible for it". I can get on board with that.

This is the way it should've always been. I don't care what tool you use, but you'd better be ready to stand by and explain the results if necessary.

[deleted]

Re: Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"

#113

Post by hn_submit »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #57
throwaway2037 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linus Torvalds regarding the Linux kernel is reasonably similar. He views AI/LLMs as just another tool in the development process. Think about life before and after modern IDEs that features IntelliSense circa 2000. It was night and day. It did not make programmers dumber -- it was a new tool.

Except LLMs actually are making programmers dumber. I personally know people, people whom I know for a fact were good programmers before, who have now completely stopped using their brains. When you ask them why they did something in the code, they say "I don't know, Claude did that and I didn't really question it". There was no such analogous phenomenon with IDEs.

I just means I'm gonna be filthy rich in a couple of years when most programmers have lost their proficiency and me never having used Claude or any other A.I. slop tool.

Re: Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"

#114

Post by MithrilTuxedo »

hn_submit wrote: post #108
chuckadams wrote: post #6

New policy boils down to "AI or not, it's still your code and you're responsible for it". I can get on board with that.

Yeah but how will this work in practice? IMHO people will just submit code they didn't write or understand. Maintainers should quiz the submitters on the code and if they fail to answer reasonably the PR is dropped with the comment: "A.I. slop" and de submitter banned.

That is the purpose of submitting them for review. Maintainers should be doing that anyway. Whether AI was used to produce the change should be invisible or not apparent to the reviewer.

Re: Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"

#115

Post by dfxm12 »

jfoster wrote: post #86
ad_fontes wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's still your code I wholly agree with your comment, but is it legally "your code"? Copyright is implicit at the moment of human creation. But there isn't yet settled law on AI-assisted creation. So it might be a problem for projects to accept contributions where it's not clear who actually owns that work.

At this point, who could bring a copyright claim? Well, considering the massive AI training effort hoovering everything up, seems it might be approximately everyone. Who would they be making the claim against? Well, considering the massive uptake of AI across the tech industry & beyond... approximately everyone. Yes, the model companies are in the middle, but it's getting to the point where it seems a bit doubtful th…

Different models have different licensing. Maybe open ai or anthropic doesn't claim ownership of output today, but some companies do. https://www.recraft.ai/docs/trust-and-security/ownership

I imagine few can afford a legal battle...

Free plan

Images generated on the Free plan are public and owned by Recraft

Re: Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"

#116

Post by bjackman »

chuckadams wrote: post #6

New policy boils down to "AI or not, it's still your code and you're responsible for it". I can get on board with that.

Before I left Google recently there was a document going around called go/stake-your-reputation, basically saying "I'm happy to receive your AI generated code but the condition is that I will judge your capabilities by it, exactly as if you handwrote it, and I'll lower my opinion of you if it's slop (with the implication that if you don't improve I'll stop accepting your contributions)"

I think the term "stake your reputation" is quite good for this situation. I.e. "hi new contributor, please acknowledge that you Stake Your Reputation before we move ahead with this code review".

(Doesn't help with legal aspects of course)

Re: Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"

#117

Post by rfgplk »

ad_fontes wrote: post #56
chuckadams wrote: post #6

New policy boils down to "AI or not, it's still your code and you're responsible for it". I can get on board with that.

> it's still your code I wholly agree with your comment, but is it legally "your code"? Copyright is implicit at the moment of human creation. But there isn't yet settled law on AI-assisted creation. So it might be a problem for projects to accept contributions where it's not clear who actually owns that work.

> Copyright

Literally irrelevant and I have no idea why people even bring this up constantly. Copyright is practically unenforceable in the software world, when was the last time you saw someone (a company or an individual) actually sue _and win_? Apple wasn't capable of stopping all the other phone manufacturers from directly cloning their product (despite having patents & copyright) so how can an individual? The only thing that matters is execution.

For instance, my repos are cloned like ~100/week by what I presume are bots and AI lab scrapers using them for training material. How am I supposed to even find out who's doing it, and if they're abiding by the licenses I provided? It's impossible.

Lastly, having copyright isn't the same thing as being allowed to commercialize the software (and I believe loads of people confuse the two). You can still sell public domain code, even if you don't have copyright over it.

Re: Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"

#118

Post by nicoburns »

dguest wrote: post #58
oooyay wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the way it should've always been. I don't care what tool you use, but you'd better be ready to stand by and explain the results if necessary.

Are there examples of anyone discussing this and reaching other conclusions? We've come to the same conclusion in our organization and while it felt like it needed to be discussed and stated, I've never heard of anyone coming to a different conclusion. [EDIT: I was referring specifically to the idea that you have to stand by the code that you write. Is anyone deciding on a policy that says "the AI did it" is a valid…

Yep, in both directions. Some projects ban use of AI entirely. Others are happy to live with slop.

Re: Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"

#119

Post by sodapopcan »

internet2000 wrote: post #75
dguest wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there examples of anyone discussing this and reaching other conclusions? We've come to the same conclusion in our organization and while it felt like it needed to be discussed and stated, I've never heard of anyone coming to a different conclusion. [EDIT: I was referring specifically to the idea that you have to stand by the code that you write. Is anyone deciding on a policy that says "the AI did it" is a valid…

> Are there examples of anyone discussing this and reaching other conclusions? Yes. Very notably: https://ziglang.org/code-of-conduct/

On the opposite side or the noteable spectrum, look up "Steve Yegge wants you to stop looking at your code." He said it in a video interview, though plenty of summaries online of exact wording and ideas. Though it's being argued that you could still be responsible for it without looking at it?

Re: Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"

#120

Post by hn_submit »

vlyan wrote: post #76
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except LLMs actually are making programmers dumber. I personally know people, people whom I know for a fact were good programmers before, who have now completely stopped using their brains. When you ask them why they did something in the code, they say "I don't know, Claude did that and I didn't really question it". There was no such analogous phenomenon with IDEs.

IDEs enable us to not bother memorizing the number and order of arguments, long names beyond the first word or two, etc. the impact is comparable, freeing some of the very limited space in our memory for more important things. sure, students and juniors shoot themselves in the dick if they let LLMs do everything, but they're fucked anyway so it doesn't matter,

Tools like Resharper and IntelliSense make me more productive but don't inhibit my thinking, which is what LLMs seem to do.
Post reply on HN