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

Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

gitlab.redox-os.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 504 posts

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#111

Post by subjectsigma »

eesmith wrote: post #43
throwaway2037 wrote: post #12

> any content submitted that is clearly labelled as LLM-generated (including issues, merge requests, and merge request descriptions) will be immediately closed Note the word "clearly". Weirdly, as a native English speaker this term makes the policy less strict. What about submarine LLM submissions? I have no beef with Redox OS. I wish them well. This feels like the newest form of OSS virtue signaling.

As a native English speaker I read this as two parts. If it's obvious, the response is immediate and not up for debate. If it's not obvious then it falls in the second part - "any attempt to bypass this policy will result in a ban from the project". A submarine submission, if discovered, will result in a ban. Using the phrase "virtual signaling" long ago became a meaningless term other than to indicate one's views in…

Somewhat off topic, but I can’t believe someone got paid to write that article, what a load of crap. It’s like saying that fallacies don’t exist because sometimes people incorrectly claim the other side is arguing fallaciously.

If you go by the literal definition in the article, it’s very clear what OP meant when he said the AI policy is virtue-signaling, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the culture war.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#112

Post by DrewADesign »

Muromec wrote: post #81
oytis wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How to differentiate between a drive-by contribution and a first contribution from a potentially long-time contrubutor. And I would say especially for operating systems if it gets any adoption irregular contributions are pretty legit. E.g. when someone wants just one specific piece of hardware supported that no one else has or needs without being employed by the vendor.

This sounds complicated in theory, but it's easier in practice. Potential long time contributor is somebody who was already asking annoying questions in the irc channel for a few months and helped with other stuff before shooting off th e PR. If the PR is the first time you hear from a person -- that's pretty drive-by ish.

Sounds like a better way to make sure you have to be part of a clique to get your changed reviewed. I’ve been a long-time bug fixer in a few projects over the years without participating in IRC. I like the software and want it you work, but have no interest in conversing about it at that level, especially when I was conversing about software constantly at work.

I always provided well-documented PRs with a narrow scope and an obvious purpose.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#113

Post by lpcvoid »

lifis wrote: post #25
duskdozer wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Not sure how they can expect to make a viable full OS without massive use of LLMs, so this makes no sense. Why not?

Because it takes a massive amount of developer work (perhaps more than anything else), and it's very unlikely they either have the ability to attract enough human developers to be able to do it without LLM assistance. Not to mention that even finding good developers willing to develop without AI (a significant handicap, even more so for coding things like an OS that are well represented in LLM training) seems difficu…

>Not sure how they can expect to make a viable full OS without massive use of LLMs, so this makes no sense.

Humans have been doing this for the better parts of 5 decades now. Don't assume others rely on LLMs as much as you do.

>Not to mention that even finding good developers willing to develop without AI (a significant handicap, even more so for coding things like an OS that are well represented in LLM training) seems difficult nowadays, especially if they aren't paying them.

I highly doubt that. In fact, I'd take a significant pay cut to move to a company that doesn't use LLMs, if I were forced to use them in my current job.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#114

Post by andy12_ »

stuaxo wrote: post #9

We need LLMs that have a certificate of origin. For instance a GPL LLM trained only on GPL code where the source data is all known, and the output is all GPL. It could be done with a distributed effort.

Honestly, given that that GPL model would be far below SOTA in capabilities, what exactly would be its use-case? Why would anyone try to use an inferior LLM if they can get away with using a superior one?

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#115

Post by mixedbit »

lukaslalinsky wrote: post #20

I think we will be getting into an interesting situation soon, where project maintainers use LLMs because they truly are useful in many cases, but will ban contributors for doing so, because they can't review how well did the user guide the LLM.

If an author of a PR just generated code with an LLM, the GitHub PR becomes an incredibly inefficient interface between a repository owner and the LLM. A much better use of the owner time would be to interact with LLM directly instead of responding to LLM generated PR, waiting for updates, responding again, etc.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#116

Post by grey-area »

menaerus wrote: post #87
stingraycharles wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s such a silly take. “Our approach is harness-first engineering: instead of reading every line of agent-generated code, invest in automated checks that can tell us with high confidence, in seconds, whether the code is correct. “ that’s literally what The whole industry has been doing for decades, and spoiler: you still need to review code! it just gives you confidence that you didn’t miss anything. Also, without…

So you read the three-part series of blogs that are packed in details in 3 minutes after I shared the link and put yourself into a position of entitled opinion and calling my position a silly take? Sure thing.

They probably used an AI to summarise those blog posts for them and it told them with high confidence, in seconds, whether they were correct.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#117

Post by Ekaros »

buzzardbait wrote: post #8
khalic wrote: post #3

The LLM ban is unenforceable, they must know this. Is it to scare off the most obvious stuff and have a way to kick people off easily in case of incomplete evidence?

Probably just an attempt to stop low effort LLM copy pasta.

A sign to point at when you get someone is posting "I asked AI to fix this and got this". You can stop reading and any arguments right there. Saving lot of time and effort.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#118

Post by subjectsigma »

menaerus wrote: post #80

Let someone from the Redox team go read [1], [2], and [3]. If they still insist on keeping their position then ... well. The industry is being redefined as we speak and everyone doing the push-back are pushing against themselves really. [1] https://www.datadoghq.com/blog/ai/harness-first-agents/ [2] https://www.datadoghq.com/blog/ai/fully-autonomous-optimizat... [3] https://www.datadoghq.com/blog/engineering/self-opt…

> The industry is being redefined as we speak and everyone doing the push-back are pushing against themselves really.

No, they’re pushing back against a world full of even more mass surveillance, corporate oligarchy, mass unemployment, wanton spam, and global warming. It is absolutely in your personal best interest to hate AI.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#119

Post by pjc50 »

lukaslalinsky wrote: post #20

I think we will be getting into an interesting situation soon, where project maintainers use LLMs because they truly are useful in many cases, but will ban contributors for doing so, because they can't review how well did the user guide the LLM.

The GPL talks about "the preferred form for modification of the software", and I'm starting to think that anything which involves any kind of LLM agent should be including all the text that the user gave to it as well. Prompts, etc.

Of course, even then it's not reproducible and requires proprietary software!

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#120

Post by Ekaros »

Anonyneko wrote: post #106
cardanome wrote: post #104

[flagged]

For one, it makes your Github profile look more attractive to employers (superficially, at least). Sometimes, I'd guess, it's also because your Github profile has some kind of an advertisement.

That is one reason I believe. Being told that you need open source presence to be employed.

I think some people also like the feeling of being helpful. And they do not understand reality of LLM outputs. See comments posting AI generated summaries or answers to question. With no verification or critical checking themselves.

Post reply on HN