SDL bans AI-written commits
github.com
SDL bans AI-written commits
1–10 of 145 posts
Re: SDL bans AI-written commits
#2What’s the point? People will just fork it and improve it with AI anyway.
In another hand, it would be an interesting experiment to watch how the original and the fork diverge over time.
Especially in terms of security discoveries and feature development.
Re: SDL bans AI-written commits
#3What’s the point? People will just fork it and improve it with AI anyway. In another hand, it would be an interesting experiment to watch how the original and the fork diverge over time. Especially in terms of security discoveries and feature development.
Will they? Will someone have enough time, skill and dedication to maintain it? I don’t think using AI will by itself make a big enough difference, it’s still a lot of work to maintain a project
Re: SDL bans AI-written commits
#4Stopping a flood with a tissue.
Re: SDL bans AI-written commits
#5While this is a perfectly fine policy in the space of possible policies (it's probably what I'd pick, for what it's worth) the arguments being given for it leave a bad taste in my mouth.
Re: SDL bans AI-written commits
#6People who can wield AI properly have no use for SDL at all. It’s a library for humans to figure out platform code. AI has no such limitations.
Re: SDL bans AI-written commits
#7On the one hand open source projects are going to be overrun with AI code that no one reviewed.
On the other hand, code produced with AI and reviewed by humans can be perfectly good, maintainable, and indistinguishable from regular old code.
So many processes are no longer sufficient to manage a world where thousands of lines of working code are easy to conjure out of thin air. Already strained open source review processes are definitely one.
I get wanting to blanket reject AI generated code, but the reality is that no one's going to be able to tell what's what in many cases. Something like a more thorough review process for onboarding trusted contributors, or some other method of cutting down on the volume of review, is probably going to be needed.
Re: SDL bans AI-written commits
#8On the one hand open source projects are going to be overrun with AI code that no one reviewed. On the other hand, code produced with AI and reviewed by humans can be perfectly good, maintainable, and indistinguishable from regular old code. So many processes are no longer sufficient to manage a world where thousands of lines of working code are easy to conjure out of thin air. Already strained open source review pro…
> On the other hand, code produced with AI and reviewed by humans can be perfectly good and indistinguishable from regular old code.
Obligatory xkcd:
Re: SDL bans AI-written commits
#9What’s the point? People will just fork it and improve it with AI anyway. In another hand, it would be an interesting experiment to watch how the original and the fork diverge over time. Especially in terms of security discoveries and feature development.
don't mind if you do 'guv, don't mind at all.
Re: SDL bans AI-written commits
#10> Given that the source of code generated by AI is unknown, we can't accept it under the Zlib license.
So what about SO code snippets? I'm not here to make a stance for AI, but this thread is leaning towards biased.
Address the elephant, LLM-assisted PR's have a chance of being lower quality. People are not obligated to review their code. Doing this manually, you are more inclined to review what you're submitting.
I don't get why these conversations always target their opinion, not the facts. I totally agree about the ethicality, the fact it's bound to get monopolized (unless GLM becomes SOTA soon), and is harming the environment. That's my opinion though, and shouldn't interfere with what others do. I don't scoff at people eating meat, let them be.
The issue is real, the solution is not.