Live data from Hacker News

SDL bans AI-written commits

github.com

101–110 of 145 posts

Re: SDL bans AI-written commits

#101

I don’t use public repos very often but I had toyed with the idea of just creating a git user specifically for an agent to use for this purpose so it would not be my user account, is this not standard practice already? Kinda seems obvious to me, I mean so people can tell which parts of my public project were commits managed by an agent.

I do this so that AI can only have limited GitHub permissions. It can't merge, doesn't have admin rights, etc.

This after I started catching it commit directly to upstream main without PRs among other things.

Re: SDL bans AI-written commits

#102
post #85

We’ll need “Organic software” seal of approval soon.

Not really. The opposite is far, far more desirable in my eyes.

Example:

* Do I care if an LLM was used to determine the volume of my doorbell? Not particularly.

* Do I care if an LLM was used to generate code to unlock my front door remotely? Absolutely!

I need a warning label cautioning me of the risks associated with generative materials. I don't care in the slightest when it isn't present, because the inherent risks associated are inherently lesser.

Batteries, not chicken breasts.

Re: SDL bans AI-written commits

#104
post #11

On 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, maintainable, and indistinguishable from regular old code. I have yet to see a single example of this. The way you make AI generated code good and maintainable is by rewriting it yourself.

I know it's unpopular to say (here), but I see it all the time. Myself I sometimes cannot recognize what I wrote and what the agent wrote. It's just that I often have a physical memory of typing it, but that's it. (I also saw a lot of garbage, to be fair.)

There is quite a bit of skill to it, however. You cannot just take an AI from blank to "good code" without doing work. Yes, it takes work and quite a bit of it. By this I mean you have to write a good code style guide and a proper explanation of your architectural style(s), your preferences, your goals, plenty of examples, etc. Proper thought has to be put into this.

If you come across bad code, you need to investigate not castigate: why did this happen? How can we prevent this in the future? Those sort of processes need to become second nature. They actually should be already, because it's not that much different from managing a bunch of humans.

Humans come with lots of implicit knowledge and you also select them to match your company's style when you're hiring them. When they sit down at their keyboards you (and society) has already guided them towards a desirable path. (And even then they often still misfire.)

AI agents operate different. Their range of expression is completely alien to us. We cannot be both von Neumanns and complete morons. LLMs have no problem there. It takes a good while to get used to that.

Re: SDL bans AI-written commits

#106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty pro-AI, but I find it very amusing that every single time an open source project enacts no-AI policy, someone will chime in and explain how it will be outcompeted by the yes-AI version, while in reality it never happens.

> while in reality it never happens. it never happens in 3 weeks? The AI revolution is just starting.. too soon to jump in conclusions, i guess?

Huh? I've been seeing the "hopelessly doomed because of AI" trope practically since ChatGPT came out. It wasn't even remotely as bad as it is now, but it's been there all along.

Re: SDL bans AI-written commits

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also something we've all been hearing for ages. " /MCP/agents/yadda yadda are totally like anything that's come before!"

> " /MCP/agents/yadda yadda are totally like anything that's come before!" and they are right. We never saw that before. That's why we all fear it.

> and they are right. We never saw that before. That's why we all fear it.

Please please please tell me this is sarcasm. Because if you are serious, I think a lot of people have a long list of bridges to cell you.

Re: SDL bans AI-written commits

#108
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't understand the down vote. Policies like these are not truly enforceable. There are many many unscrupulous humans out there, that are more than willing to make any code they submit, look like a human wrote it, even though an LLM created it.

Illusion of transparency: you think your analogy was clear, other people found it opaque and dismissive, and expended what they considered to be a similar level of effort to engage with it as was used in creating it.

Wow, slow clap.

Re: SDL bans AI-written commits

#109
Since using AI costs money, some way of contributing AI patches when asked might make sense here? Let the project maintainers decide what’s worth attempting to solve with AI.

Suppose there were a website that helped would-be contributors of AI assistance to match up with projects that want help?

Post reply on HN