How can they even tell code was written by AI instead of a human?
emdashes
My coding TUIs all have rules to never use emdashes.
LLM Usage in Debian: Three Proposals
101–110 of 228 posts
Re: LLM Usage in Debian: Three Proposals
#102[dead]
Re: LLM Usage in Debian: Three Proposals
#103"Look at this. Look at what they make you give." - The Professor from The Bourne Identity (2002)
Re: LLM Usage in Debian: Three Proposals
#104Don't misinterpret this link as representing a final decision. It's actually three separate proposals which will be debated and then voted on. Proposal A is "expressly forbid any contributions to Debian written with the use or assistance of large language models (LLMs) or other generative AI tools." Proposal B is "The Debian project allows AI-assisted contributions (partially or fully generated by an LLM), provided t…
The title says "proposals" Why would someone misinterpret this as a final decision?
I misinterpreted it as a final decision when I first skimmed the page. The title of the linked document is "Resolution: LLM usage in Debian" and it's not obvious that it's several competing proposals until you explore the page in more detail.
The Hacker News submission title was updated to include "Three Proposals" after I posted my comment.
Re: LLM Usage in Debian: Three Proposals
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This set of proposals, are (sorry) just stupid. It's like saying to someone, you are not allowed to saw wood using an electric saw, you must do it by hand. Stupid? Since when has there been a lack of clarity in copyright status with electric vs. hand saws?
This has nothing to do with copyright status or copyrighted works. If it did, Debian wouldn't even be a thing. You can't be a puritan about this; How much of Debian can one say, hand on heart, is truly not inspired, or influenced by other people's work, copyrighted or not.
> This has nothing to do with copyright status or copyrighted works.
It's literally the first rationale of choice 1 of proposal A. How does this have "nothing to do" with it?
Re: LLM Usage in Debian: Three Proposals
#106I find it ironic that so many OSS projects are or are considering banning LLM usage. After all, without OSS, LLMs would never have been this good at coding.
Shouldn't OSS be the first to benefit? Or should OSS be a bedrock of carefully curated code untouched by AI slop?
Re: LLM Usage in Debian: Three Proposals
#107Debian should completely avoid AI slop.
Let the Salesforces and the Atlassians of the world destroy themselves with poor quality vibecode driven teams.
Using LLM to scan for security holes is another issue altogether.
Re: LLM Usage in Debian: Three Proposals
#108Debian Airport is debating whether to allow aircraft to land on autopilot. On the one hand it’s nice that autopilot gives more people the chance to fly, and it lets experienced pilots fly more often. On the other hand, Debian Airport has, to date, been run by a carefully curated club of “stick and rudder” pilots. It’s a club where the air safety is backed up by nothing more than the name and reputation of the pilot coming in to land.
What if Claude goes down on approach? Or you run out of OpenAI tokens just before touchdown? What’s the point of having a named pilot if the control of the aircraft is in someone else’s hands, in part or in whole?
With actual pilots you have to take an exam and pass a practical test to prove you are competent. It’s a part of the analogy that could apply well to the real world Debian project.
Re: LLM Usage in Debian: Three Proposals
#109Proposals like these are arrogant and obnoxious. You aren’t going to tell me what tools I can use.
No, but they are going to tell you what's acceptable if you want to contribute to their project, and kick you out if they find you broke the rules. Projects have always had their rules you had to follow if you wanted to participate.
Re: LLM Usage in Debian: Three Proposals
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's more like: food processing tool A is known to be defective. We ask employees of this restaurant and supply chains to avoid food processing tool A. This seems eminently reasonable. The question is whether the tool is in fact defective.
Why don't you come back to talking about software rather than using terrible analogies. LLMs write bad code / so do people, a lot of really bad code. LLMs write security bugs / so do people, so many god damned security bugs.
Yes, people make mistakes. But they make far fewer than LLMs.