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

We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

samsaffron.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 161 posts

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#121

Post by pdonis »

andy99 wrote: post #69

This is a problem everywhere now, and not just in code. It now takes zero effort to produce something, whether code or a work plan or “deep research” and then lob it over the fence, expecting people to review and act upon it. It’s an extension of the asymmetric bullshit principle IMO, and I think now all workplaces / projects need norms about this.

> expecting people to review and act upon it.

But why should this expectation be honored? If someone spends close to zero effort generating a piece of code and lobs it over the fence to me, why would I even look at it? Particularly if it doesn't even meet the requirements for a pull request (which is what it seems like the article is talking about)?

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#123

Post by hippo22 »

pdonis wrote: post #121
andy99 wrote: post #69

This is a problem everywhere now, and not just in code. It now takes zero effort to produce something, whether code or a work plan or “deep research” and then lob it over the fence, expecting people to review and act upon it. It’s an extension of the asymmetric bullshit principle IMO, and I think now all workplaces / projects need norms about this.

> expecting people to review and act upon it. But why should this expectation be honored? If someone spends close to zero effort generating a piece of code and lobs it over the fence to me, why would I even look at it? Particularly if it doesn't even meet the requirements for a pull request (which is what it seems like the article is talking about)?

Because that's the definition of collaboration? Prior to the invention of LLMs, one could generally assume requests for collaboration were somewhat sincere due to the time investment involved. Now we need a new paradigm for collaboration.

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#124

Post by aydyn »

mavamaarten wrote: post #106
softwaredoug wrote: post #11

Anyone else feel like we're cresting the LLM coding hype curve? Like a recognition that there's value there, but we're passing the frothing-at-the-mouth stage of replacing all software engineers?

My opinion swings between hype to hate every day. Yesterday all suggestions / edits / answers were hallucinated garbage, and I was ready to remove the copilot plugin altogether. Today I was stuck at a really annoying problem for hours and hours. For shits and giggles I just gave Claude a stacktrace and a description and let it go ham. It produced an amazingly accurate thought train and found my issue, which was not w…

Well part of your problem is you are still using copilot. Its fully outdated compared to claude/codex. This tech moves fast.

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#125

Post by strogonoff »

solotronics wrote: post #120
andy99 wrote: post #69

This is a problem everywhere now, and not just in code. It now takes zero effort to produce something, whether code or a work plan or “deep research” and then lob it over the fence, expecting people to review and act upon it. It’s an extension of the asymmetric bullshit principle IMO, and I think now all workplaces / projects need norms about this.

This problem statement was actually where the idea for Proof of Work (aka mining) in bitcoin came from. It evolved out of the idea of requiring a computational proof of work for sending an email via cypherpunk remailers as a way of fighting spam. The idea being only a legitimate or determined sender would put in the "proof of work" to use the remailer. I wonder how it would look if open source projects required $5 to…

The parallel between PoW and barriers to entry many communities (be it Wikipedia editors or open-source contributors) use to sustain themselves seems apt.

Unfortunately, there is no community equivalent of PoS—the only alternative is introducing different barriers, like ID verification, payment, in-person interviews, private invite system, etc., which often conflict with the nature of anonymous volunteer communities.

Such communities are perhaps one of the greatest things the Web has given us, and it is sad to see them struggle.

(I can imagine LLM operators jumping on the opportunity to sell some of these new barriers, to profit from selling both the problematic product and a product to work around those problems.)

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#126

Post by pdonis »

hippo22 wrote: post #123
pdonis wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> expecting people to review and act upon it. But why should this expectation be honored? If someone spends close to zero effort generating a piece of code and lobs it over the fence to me, why would I even look at it? Particularly if it doesn't even meet the requirements for a pull request (which is what it seems like the article is talking about)?

Because that's the definition of collaboration? Prior to the invention of LLMs, one could generally assume requests for collaboration were somewhat sincere due to the time investment involved. Now we need a new paradigm for collaboration.

> Because that's the definition of collaboration?

I don't think the definition of collaboration includes making close to zero effort and expecting someone else to expend considerable effort in return.

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#128

Post by sothatsit »

pdonis wrote: post #126
hippo22 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that's the definition of collaboration? Prior to the invention of LLMs, one could generally assume requests for collaboration were somewhat sincere due to the time investment involved. Now we need a new paradigm for collaboration.

> Because that's the definition of collaboration? I don't think the definition of collaboration includes making close to zero effort and expecting someone else to expend considerable effort in return.

The problem is that the sheer volume of low-quality AI PRs is overwhelming. Just the time it takes determining whether you should pay attention to a PR or not can add up when there are a lot of plausible-looking, but actually low-quality and untested, pull requests to your project.

But if you stop looking at PRs entirely, you eliminate the ability for new contributors to join a project or make changes that improve the project. This is where the conflict comes from.

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#129

Post by Frieren »

strogonoff wrote: post #125
solotronics wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This problem statement was actually where the idea for Proof of Work (aka mining) in bitcoin came from. It evolved out of the idea of requiring a computational proof of work for sending an email via cypherpunk remailers as a way of fighting spam. The idea being only a legitimate or determined sender would put in the "proof of work" to use the remailer. I wonder how it would look if open source projects required $5 to…

The parallel between PoW and barriers to entry many communities (be it Wikipedia editors or open-source contributors) use to sustain themselves seems apt. Unfortunately, there is no community equivalent of PoS—the only alternative is introducing different barriers, like ID verification, payment, in-person interviews, private invite system, etc., which often conflict with the nature of anonymous volunteer communities.…

> (I can imagine LLM operators jumping on the opportunity to sell some of these new barriers, to profit from selling both the problematic product and a product to work around those problems.)

That is their business model. Use AI to create posts in LinkedIn, mails in a corporate environment, etc. And then use AI to summarize all that text.

AI creates a problem and then offers a solution.

My current approach is to look at new sources lie The Guardian, Le Monde, AP news, etc. I know that they put the work, sadly places like Reddit and such are just becoming forums that discuss garbage news with bot comments. (I could use AI to identify non-bot comments and news sources, but it does not really work even if it says that it does, and I should not have to do that in the first place either).

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#130

Post by r4victor »

So far I prefer the Hashimoto's solution to this that "AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44976568

I use it like this: If a PR is LLM-generated, you as a maintainer either merge it if it's good or close if it's not. If it's human-written, you may spend some time reviewing the code and iterating on the PR as you used to.

Saves your time without discarding LLM PRs completely.

Post reply on HN