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

LLM policy?

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 145 posts

Re: LLM policy?

#121

Post by Blackthorn »

theshrike79 wrote: post #95
kijin wrote: post #41

I have a simple rule: whenever I receive an issue or PR from an unfamiliar account, I skim the text and/or code and post 1-2 quick questions. If the submitter responds intelligently, then the issue warrants a more in-depth investigation. If not, the submitter clearly doesn't think that the issue is worth following up on, so it's not worth my time, either. The more code a PR contains, the more thorough knowledge of it…

> I have a simple rule: whenever I receive an issue or PR from an unfamiliar account, I skim the text and/or code and post 1-2 quick questions. If the submitter responds intelligently, then the issue warrants a more in-depth investigation. If not, the submitter clearly doesn't think that the issue is worth following up on, so it's not worth my time, either. And if the submitter responds with "Great question! ...", wh…

Ban them.

Re: LLM policy?

#122

Post by munificent »

muzani wrote: post #88
forgotoldacc wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I think overall society grew less substantially less gullible over time. Absolutely not. All that happened is most people became aware that "Nigerians offering you money are scammers." But they still fall for other get rich quick schemes so long as it diverges a little bit from that known pattern, and they'll confidently walk into the scam despite being warned and saying, "It's not a scam, dumbass. It's not lik…

I call it the antibody effect. My favorite example is clickbait headlines like, "Five things you MUST do if you're doing this thing. You'd never guess #3!" It used to be everywhere and now it's nowhere. AI is starting to show this effect - people stay away from em-dashes. There's that yellowish tinge and that composition which people avoid on art. Some of this is bad, but we can probably live without it.

> "Five things you MUST do if you're doing this thing. You'd never guess #3!" It used to be everywhere and now it's nowhere.

Try opening YouTube in an incognito window sometime. Scrolling through a few, I see:

* Banned Amazon Products you NEED to See to Believe!

* This has NEVER Happened Before... (Severe Weather Channel)

* Our Dog got Married and had PUPPIES! THE MOVIE Emotional

* I WENT TO GHOST TOWN AND SOMETHING HEARTBREAKING...

Re: LLM policy?

#123

Post by hitarpetar »

Gigablah wrote: post #35
jmyeet wrote: post #14

Some years ago I read the Neal Stephenson book Anathem . SPOILERS: it has a version of the Internet called the Reticulum and one thing I remember is that it was filled with garbage. True information subtly changed multiple times until it was garbage. And there were agents to see through the garbage. I imagined this to be a neverending arms race. Honestly, this is kind of where I see LLM generated content going where…

Humans are far more effective at producing garbage than LLMs will ever be :)

we get it, you hate people

Re: LLM policy?

#124

Post by hitarpetar »

tombert wrote: post #74
ninetyninenine wrote: post #17

This is a minor issue. The big issue comes when we start complaining about code that's not generated by AI. When hand coded stuff becomes buggier than AI stuff.

You're being downvoted but I think I get what you're getting at. When I was doing my masters a few months ago, I would get my assignments rejected whenever I didn't run them through Grammarly first. I have nothing against Grammarly, it's a useful too, but I find that it has the tendency to reject things that (as far as I can tell) are still technically correct but don't have the "AI vibe" to it. I suspect that the gr…

what do you mean your assignments were rejected? like rejected for being AI generated?

Re: LLM policy?

#125

Post by grayhatter »

wilya7 wrote: post #73
xeeeeeeeeeeenu wrote: post #32

Unfortunately, LLMs empower "contributors" who can't be bothered to put in any effort and who don't care about the negative impact of their actions on the maintainers. The open-source community, generally speaking, is a high-trust society and I'm afraid that LLM abuse may turn it into a low-trust society. The end result will be worse than the status quo for everyone involved.

Everything is collapsing toward a low-trust default. At the end of this trajectory, we rediscover that the analog world becomes valuable precisely because it can't be infinitely replicated. Authenticity becomes the foundational currency. But everyone must master AI tools to stay relevant. The brilliant engineer who refuses AI-generated PR by principle will get replaced. Every 18-24 months, as capabilities double, req…

[flagged]

Re: LLM policy?

#126

Post by nunez »

SoftTalker wrote: post #4

I think everything has a growing problem with LLM/AI generated content. Emails, blog posts, news articles, research papers, grant applications, business proposals, music, art, pretty much everything you can think of. There’s already more human produced content in the world than anyone could ever hope to consume, we don’t need more from AI.

It's so bad. Auto generated content was a problem before for sure, but it's overwhelming now. It's not so much the content being AI-generated that's the problem for me (though its quality is definitely a notch or two below what an actual person would produce) as it is the people that content made redundant.

Re: LLM policy?

#127

Post by grayhatter »

cyphar wrote: post #72
CGamesPlay wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's disrespectful to throw bad code on somebody else, regardless of its provenance. And (as a professional who uses AI coding agents) I understand that LLM code is often bad code. But the OP isn't complaining about the deluge of bad code being submitted as PRs, they're complaining about LLM code being submitted as PRs. I've also been on the other side of this, receiving some spammy LLM-generated irrelevant "…

(OP here.) Well, we don't receive that many low-quality PRs in general (I opened this issue to discuss solutions before it becomes a real problem). Speaking personally, when it does happen I try to help mentor the person to improve their code or (in the case where the person isn't responsive) I sit down and make the improvements I would've made and explain why they were made as a comment in the PR. When it comes to L…

Hope you can forgive this tangent, I considered posting this in the GH thread, but you asked nicely not to... So hopefully this is a middle ground, you can excuse or ignore

First, my original comment was going to ask if you're looked at what any other reputable repos are doing. Specifically popular FOSS projects that are not backed by a company looking to sell AI. Do any of them have a positive Policy, or positions that you want to include?

Second, if I was forced to take a stand on AI, I would duplicate the policy from Zig. I feel their policy hits the exact ethos FOSS should strive for. They even ban AI for translations, because the reader is just as capable a participant. And importantly, asking the author to do their best (without AI), and trust the reader to also try their best encourages human communication. It also gives the reader control and knowledge over the exact amount of uncertainty introduced by the LLM, which is critically important to understanding a poor quality bug report from a helpful users who is honestly trying to help. Lobste.rs github disallows AI contribution for an entirely different reason I haven't seen covered in your GH thread yet

Finally, you posted the Issue as an RFC. but then explicitly excluded, HN from commenting on the issue. I think that was a fantastic decision, and expertly written. (I also appreciate that lesson in tactfulness :) ) That said, if you're actually interested in requesting comments or thoughts you wouldn't have considered, I would encourage you to make a top level RFC comment this thread. There will likely be a lot of human slop to wade through, but occasionally I'll uncover a genuinely great comment on HN that improves my understanding. Here I think the smart pro-AI crowd that might have an argument I want to consider, but would be unlikely to on my own because of my bias on the quality of AI. Such a comment might would be likely to appear on HN, but the smart people who I'd want to learn from, would never comment on the GH thread now, and I appreciate it when smart people I disagree with, contribute to my understanding.

PS Thanks for working on opencontainers, and caring enough to keep trying to make it better, and healthier! I like having good quality software to work with :)

Re: LLM policy?

#128

Post by arpit15191 »

I think there is soon going to be such implementations globally, if not within organizations or smaller groups. The ease of using v/s actual quality content is really the question should be answered when deciding LLM policy.

Re: LLM policy?

#129

Post by estimator7292 »

munificent wrote: post #122
muzani wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I call it the antibody effect. My favorite example is clickbait headlines like, "Five things you MUST do if you're doing this thing. You'd never guess #3!" It used to be everywhere and now it's nowhere. AI is starting to show this effect - people stay away from em-dashes. There's that yellowish tinge and that composition which people avoid on art. Some of this is bad, but we can probably live without it.

> "Five things you MUST do if you're doing this thing. You'd never guess #3!" It used to be everywhere and now it's nowhere. Try opening YouTube in an incognito window sometime. Scrolling through a few, I see: * Banned Amazon Products you NEED to See to Believe! * This has NEVER Happened Before... (Severe Weather Channel) * Our Dog got Married and had PUPPIES! THE MOVIE Emotional * I WENT TO GHOST TOWN AND SOMETHING…

Absolutely. I block at least three channels a week because YouTube keeps recommending clickbait titles and 'tuber face thumbnails.

Bonus points if said 'tuber is pointing at something with their hand and also a red arrow and/or circle which id also blurred out.

Intolerable.

Re: LLM policy?

#130

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

tsimionescu wrote: post #114
noduerme wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quantity and velocity of misinformation are both critical variables here. Any one person's writing was always untrustworthy, but the majority of that bad writing didn't make it to a printing press, nor was it mass-distributed. Let's accept the proposition that all forms of media have always been full of lies. We can say that debunking always follows lies, truth spreads more slowly than fiction. The quantity and veloc…

The total amount of generated untrustworthy content is irrelevant. People must learn to only read content from trusted sources, and then it won't matter how much misinformation is being published in other places. It was never difficult to publish large amounts of misinformation, AI is only making it cheaper.

If the signal/noise ratio dramatically decreases then finding trustworthy sources in the first place becomes more difficult.
Post reply on HN