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

Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 308 posts

Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

#11

Post by coldpie »

Jleagle wrote: post #7
SamuelAdams wrote: post #4

My question on AI generated contributions and content in general: on a long enough timeline, with ever improving advancements in AI, how can people reliably tell the difference between human and AI generated efforts? Sure now it is easy, but in 3-10 years AI will get significantly better. It is a lot like the audio quality of an MP3 recording. It is not perfect (lossless audio is better), but for the majority of user…

Isn't your prediction a good thing? People prefer humans currently as they are better but if AI is just as good, doesn't that just mean more good PRs?

> but if AI is just as good, doesn't that just mean more good PRs?

If you believe the outputs of LLMs are derivative products of the materials the LLMs were trained on (which is a position I lean towards myself, but I also understand the viewpoint of those who disagree), then no, that's not a good thing, because it would be a license violation to accept those derived products without following the original material's license terms, such as attribution and copyleft terms. You are now party to violating the original materials' copyright by accepting AI generated code. That's ethically dubious, even if those original authors may have a hard time bringing a court case against you.

Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

#12

Post by BoredPositron »

SamuelAdams wrote: post #4

My question on AI generated contributions and content in general: on a long enough timeline, with ever improving advancements in AI, how can people reliably tell the difference between human and AI generated efforts? Sure now it is easy, but in 3-10 years AI will get significantly better. It is a lot like the audio quality of an MP3 recording. It is not perfect (lossless audio is better), but for the majority of user…

Intent matters. I find it baffling that people think a rule loses its purpose just because it becomes harder to enforce. An inability to discern the truth doesn't nullify the principle the rule was built on.

Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

#13

Post by mrbungie »

SamuelAdams wrote: post #4

My question on AI generated contributions and content in general: on a long enough timeline, with ever improving advancements in AI, how can people reliably tell the difference between human and AI generated efforts? Sure now it is easy, but in 3-10 years AI will get significantly better. It is a lot like the audio quality of an MP3 recording. It is not perfect (lossless audio is better), but for the majority of user…

The same way niche/luxury product and services compare to fast/cheap ones: they are made with focus and intent that goes against the statistical average, which also normally would take more time and effort to make.

McDonalds cooks ~great~ (edit: fair enough, decent) burgers when measured objectively, but people still go to more niche burger restaurants because they want something different and made with more care.

That's not to say that an human can't use AI with intent, but then AI becomes another tool and not an autonomous code generating agent.

Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

#14

Post by wadim »

SamuelAdams wrote: post #4

My question on AI generated contributions and content in general: on a long enough timeline, with ever improving advancements in AI, how can people reliably tell the difference between human and AI generated efforts? Sure now it is easy, but in 3-10 years AI will get significantly better. It is a lot like the audio quality of an MP3 recording. It is not perfect (lossless audio is better), but for the majority of user…

Why accept PR's in this case, if the maintainers themselves can ask their favorite LLM to implement a feature/fix an issue?

Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

#15

Post by sieep »

lpcvoid wrote: post #10
hombre_fatal wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say "on a long enough timeline", but you already can't tell today in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing. I think a lot of anti-LLM opinions just come from interacting with the lowest effort LLM slop and someone not realizing that it's really a problem with a low value person behind it. It's why "no AI allowed" is pointless; high value contributors won't follow it because they know how to use it pro…

All LLM-output is slop. There's no good LLM output. It's stolen code, stolen literature, stolen media condensed into the greatest heist of the 21. century. Perfect capitalism - big LLM companies don't need to pay royalties to humans, while selling access to a service which generates monthly revenue.

Well put. Im gonna start parroting this talking point more from now on.

Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

#16

Post by theptip »

> disclosure if "a significant portion of the contribution is taken from a tool without manual modification", and labeling of such contributions with "a clear disclaimer or a machine-readable tag like '[AI-Generated]'.

Quixotic, unworkable, pointless. It’s fundamentally impossible (at least without a level of surveillance that would obviously be unavceptable) to prove the “artisanal hand-crafted human code” label.

> contributors should "fully understand" their submissions and would be accountable for the contributions, "including vouching for the technical merit, security, license compliance, and utility of their submissions".

This is in the right direction.

I think the missing link is around formalizing the reputation system; this exists for senior contributors but the on-ramp for new contributors is currently not working.

Perhaps bots should ruthlessly triage in-vouched submissions until the actor has proven a good-faith ability to deliver meaningful results. (Or the principal has staked / donated real money to the foundation to prove they are serious.)

I think the real problem here is the flood of low-effort slop, not AI tooling itself. In the hands of a responsible contributor LLMs are already providing big wins to many. (See antirez’s posts for example, if you are skeptical.)

Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

#17

Post by hombre_fatal »

lpcvoid wrote: post #10
hombre_fatal wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say "on a long enough timeline", but you already can't tell today in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing. I think a lot of anti-LLM opinions just come from interacting with the lowest effort LLM slop and someone not realizing that it's really a problem with a low value person behind it. It's why "no AI allowed" is pointless; high value contributors won't follow it because they know how to use it pro…

All LLM-output is slop. There's no good LLM output. It's stolen code, stolen literature, stolen media condensed into the greatest heist of the 21. century. Perfect capitalism - big LLM companies don't need to pay royalties to humans, while selling access to a service which generates monthly revenue.

Whether it trained on real world "stolen" code is an implementation detail. A controversial one, but it isn't a supporting argument for whether it can write high quality, functional code or not.

Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

#18

Post by graemep »

coldpie wrote: post #11
Jleagle wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't your prediction a good thing? People prefer humans currently as they are better but if AI is just as good, doesn't that just mean more good PRs?

> but if AI is just as good, doesn't that just mean more good PRs? If you believe the outputs of LLMs are derivative products of the materials the LLMs were trained on (which is a position I lean towards myself, but I also understand the viewpoint of those who disagree), then no, that's not a good thing, because it would be a license violation to accept those derived products without following the original material's…

> If you believe the outputs of LLMs are derivative products of the materials the LLMs were trained on

In that case a lot of proprietary software is in breach of copyleft licences. Its probably by far the commonest breach.

> You are now party to violating the original materials' copyright by accepting AI generated code. That's ethically dubious

That is arguable. Is it always ethically dubious to breach a law? If not, which is it ethically dubious to breach this law in this particular way?

Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

#19

Post by theptip »

wadim wrote: post #14
SamuelAdams wrote: post #4

My question on AI generated contributions and content in general: on a long enough timeline, with ever improving advancements in AI, how can people reliably tell the difference between human and AI generated efforts? Sure now it is easy, but in 3-10 years AI will get significantly better. It is a lot like the audio quality of an MP3 recording. It is not perfect (lossless audio is better), but for the majority of user…

Why accept PR's in this case, if the maintainers themselves can ask their favorite LLM to implement a feature/fix an issue?

Obviously - it takes effort to hone the idea/spec, and it takes time to validate the result. Code being free doesn’t make a kernel patch free, though it would make it cheaper.

Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

#20

Post by lich_king »

SamuelAdams wrote: post #4

My question on AI generated contributions and content in general: on a long enough timeline, with ever improving advancements in AI, how can people reliably tell the difference between human and AI generated efforts? Sure now it is easy, but in 3-10 years AI will get significantly better. It is a lot like the audio quality of an MP3 recording. It is not perfect (lossless audio is better), but for the majority of user…

> My question on AI generated contributions and content in general: on a long enough timeline, with ever improving advancements in AI, how can people reliably tell the difference between human and AI generated efforts?

Can you reliably tell that the contributor is truly the author of the patch and that they aren't working for a company that asserts copyright on that code? No, but it's probably still a good idea to have a policy that says "you can't do that", and you should be on the lookout for obvious violations.

It's the same story here. If you do nothing, you invite problems. If you do something, you won't stop every instance, but you're on stronger footing if it ever blows up.

Of course, the next question is whether AI-generated code that matches or surpasses human quality is even a problem. But right now, it's academic: most of the AI submissions received by open source projects are low quality. And if it improves, some projects might still have issues with it on legal (copyright) or ideological grounds, and that's their prerogative.

Post reply on HN