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

AI Usage Policy

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 293 posts

Re: AI Usage Policy

#101

Post by imiric »

Terretta wrote: post #39
imiric wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you on the policy being balanced. However: > AI generated code does not substitute human thinking, testing, and clean up/rewrite. Isn't that the end goal of these tools and companies producing them? According to the marketing[1], the tools are already "smarter than people in many ways". If that is the case, what are these "ways", and why should we trust a human to do a better job at them? If these "ways"…

Intern generated code does not substitute for tech lead thinking, testing, and clean up/rewrite.

No, the code is generated by a tool that's "smarter than people in many ways". So which parts of "thinking, testing, and clean up/rewrite" can we trust it with?

Re: AI Usage Policy

#102

Post by KronisLV »

> You must state the tool you used (e.g. Claude Code, Cursor, Amp)

Interesting requirement! Feels a bit like asking someone what IDE they used.

There shouldn't be that meaningful of a difference between the different tools/providers unless you'd consistently see a few underperform and would choose to ban those or something.

The other rules feel like they might discourage AI use due to more boilerplate needed (though I assume the people using AI might make the AI fill out some of it), though I can understand why a project might want to have those sorts of disclosures and control. That said, the rules themselves feel quite reasonable!

Re: AI Usage Policy

#103

Post by KolmogorovComp »

layer8 wrote: post #93
KolmogorovComp wrote: post #72

A good PR using IA should be impossible to distinguish from a non-AI one.

The problem is that most aren’t good, and bad ones can take a lot of effort to distinguish, if they look plausible on the surface. So the potentially good ones aren’t worth all the bad ones.

I agree with most of them being bad, I disagree with them taking lots of effort to distinguish, and I am maintainer unfortunately receiving receiving more and more using AI.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#104

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

pousada wrote: post #74
Sharlin wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is people seriously believe that whatever GPT tells them must be true, because… I don't even know. Just because it sounds self-confident and authoritative? Because computers are supposed to not make mistakes? Because talking computers in science fiction do not make mistakes like that? The fact that LLMs ended up having this particular failure mode, out of all possible failure modes, is incredibly unfortunate…

I think in science fiction it’s one of the most common themes for the talking computer to be utterly horribly wrong, often resulting in complete annihilation of all life on earth. Unless I have been reading very different science fiction I think it’s definitely not that. I think it’s more the confidence and seeming plausibility of LLM answers

People are literally taking Black Mirror storylines and trying to manifest them. I think they did a `s/dys/u/` and don't know how to undo it...

Re: AI Usage Policy

#105

Post by nutjob2 »

direwolf20 wrote: post #26
nutjob2 wrote: post #23

A factor that people have not considered is that the copyright status of AI generated text is not settled law and precedent or new law may retroactively change the copyright status of a whole project. Maybe a bit unlikely, but still an issue no one is really considering. There has been a single ruling (I think) that AI generated code is uncopyrightable. There has been at least one affirmative fair use ruling. Both of…

This only matters if you get sued for copyright violation, though.

If you're a big enough target, that is inevitable.

You may become a big enough target only when it's too late to undo it.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#106

Post by ollien »

jakozaur wrote: post #6

See x thread for rationale: https://x.com/mitchellh/status/2014433315261124760?s=46&t=FU... “ Ultimately, I want to see full session transcripts, but we don't have enough tool support for that broadly.” I have a side project, git-prompt-story to attach Claude Vode session in GitHub git notes. Though it is not that simple to do automatic (e.g. i need to redact credentials).

Not sure how I feel about transcripts. Ultimately I do my best to make any contributions I make high quality, and that means taking time to polish things. Exposing the tangled mess of my thought process leading up to that either means I have to "polish" that too (whatever that ends up looking like), or put myself in a vulnerable position of showing my tangled process to get to the end result.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#107

Post by Suzuran »

Sharlin wrote: post #55
monegator wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The biggest surprise to me with all this low-quality contribution spam is how little shame people apparently have. ever had a client second guess you by replying you a screenshot from GPT? ever asked anything in a public group only to have a complete moron replying you with a screenshot from GPT or - at least a bit of effor there - a copy/paste of the wall of text? no, people have no shame. they have a need for a l…

Problem is people seriously believe that whatever GPT tells them must be true, because… I don't even know. Just because it sounds self-confident and authoritative? Because computers are supposed to not make mistakes? Because talking computers in science fiction do not make mistakes like that? The fact that LLMs ended up having this particular failure mode, out of all possible failure modes, is incredibly unfortunate…

My boss says it's because they are backed by trillion dollar companies and the companies would face dire legal threats if they did not ensure the correctness of AI output.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#108

Post by TeMPOraL »

monegator wrote: post #46
Version467 wrote: post #24

The biggest surprise to me with all this low-quality contribution spam is how little shame people apparently have. I have a handful of open source contributions. All of them are for small-ish projects and the complexity of my contributions are in the same ball-park as what I work on day-to-day. And even though I am relatively confident in my competency as a developer, these contributions are probably the most thoroug…

> The biggest surprise to me with all this low-quality contribution spam is how little shame people apparently have. ever had a client second guess you by replying you a screenshot from GPT? ever asked anything in a public group only to have a complete moron replying you with a screenshot from GPT or - at least a bit of effor there - a copy/paste of the wall of text? no, people have no shame. they have a need for a l…

This sounds a bit like the "Asking vs. Guessing culture" discussion on the front page yesterday. With the "Guesser" being GP who's front-loading extra investigation, debugging and maintenance work so the project maintainers don't have to do it, and with the "Asker" being the client from your example, pasting the submission to ChatGPT and forwarding its response.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#109

Post by KronisLV »

cess11 wrote: post #94
anon_anon12 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People's trust on LLM imo stems from the lack of awareness of AI hallucinating. Hallucination benchmarks are often hidden or talked about hastily in marketing videos.

[flagged]

> It's just a database. There is no difference in a technical sense between "hallucination" and whatever else you imagine.

It's like a JPEG. Except instead of lossy compression on images that give you a pixel soup that only vaguely resembles the original if you're resource bound (and even modern SOTA models are when it comes to LLMs), instead you get stuff that looks more or less correct but just isn't.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#110

Post by monegator »

monooso wrote: post #50
monegator wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The biggest surprise to me with all this low-quality contribution spam is how little shame people apparently have. ever had a client second guess you by replying you a screenshot from GPT? ever asked anything in a public group only to have a complete moron replying you with a screenshot from GPT or - at least a bit of effor there - a copy/paste of the wall of text? no, people have no shame. they have a need for a l…

Not OP, but I don't consider these the same thing. The client in your example isn't a (presumably) professional developer, submitting code to a public repository, inviting the scrutiny of fellow professionals and potential future clients or employers.

I consider them to be the same attitude. Machine made it / Machine said it. It must be right, you must be wrong.

They are sure they know better because they get a yes man doing their job for them.

Post reply on HN