Live data from Hacker News

LLM policy?

github.com

141–145 of 145 posts

Re: LLM policy?

#141
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's because of copyright concerns? Nominatively, yes. But I think I would describe it as risk tolerance. I'm going to be one of those bad cosplayers and assert that the two rulings mentioned even if they were precedent setting, don't actually apply to the risks themselves. Could you win a case is much less important than if you could survive the court costs. There's no doubt some value in LLM based code generation…

> I would need to spend hours of time to articulate exactly how uncomfortable this would make me if I was working along side you. I think this came out a little wrong -- my point was that if we are going to go with a middle-ground approach then we need to have a much lower tolerance for people who try to abuse the trust we gave in providing a middle-ground. (Also, there is little purpose in having a policy if you don…

> I think this came out a little wrong

I think it came out exactly perfectly. Unrelated to this specific topic, I've been thinking a lot lately about reward vs punishment as a framework for promoting pro-social environments. I didn't read far into what you said. I was merely pattern matching it back to the common mistakes I see and want to discourage.

> but if a tool did it then not mentioning it feels dishonest in more ways than one.

Yeah, plagiarism is shockingly common. It's a sign of lacking the skill or ability to entertain 2rd order, or 3rd order thoughts/ideas.

Re: LLM policy?

#142

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.

This argument is wrong because it proves too much. The existence of bad content says nothing about quality content, they are obviously uncorrelated. The amount of content a single person could consume says nothing about the "need" for more.

Re: LLM policy?

#143
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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…

Thanks for the response here. I also read your follow-up on the Github issue. I definitely agree with you on the mentorship point. The "CPU quota allocation mismatch" issue felt particularly agitating to read from the point of view as a maintainer. Human being acting as a proxy for ChatGPT. Have you considered putting an "LLM usage disclosure" question on the issue/PR templates? Something like "To what extent were AI…

I've been thinking about this a bit over the past few days, and I think this is a fairly reasonable middle ground (and also allows maintainers to decide how they wish to engage with LLM-generated work).

Re: LLM policy?

#144
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of these days I need to make a bot that scans FOSS repos for this kind of little pink nonsense behavior. The insecurity of wanting to call a place "country name, province of different country name" should alone be mocked. Imagine, "Ukraine, province of Russia," or "India, colony of The United Kingdom." Absurd on its face.

The problem with this is that, for some folks, its not absurd or nonsense because that is not considered a "country name" to them. It is considered a province name. So the inverse (calling a province a country) is considered absurd/nonsense.

> is not considered a "country name" to them. It is considered a province name.

Some people think calling the earth a globe is absurd. Those people are wrong. Is there any particular reason I should entertain their, hm, "opinion?"

Re: LLM policy?

#145

>>> the entire issue description contains so much unneeded (and probably incorrect) information that it'd be better if they just provided their LLM prompt as an issue instead When it's put this way, it seems a lot like the problem of people walking into doctors' offices with certainty that they know their own diagnosis after reading stuff on Reddit and WebMD. What this post actually amounts to, indirectly, is a plea…

With great profit for the oligarchs.
Post reply on HN