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

AI Usage Policy

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 293 posts

Re: AI Usage Policy

#171

Post by yomismoaqui »

Until now code was something costly to make and could only be created by our monkey brains.

But now we have some kind of electronic brains that can also generate code, not at the level of the best human brains out there but good enough for most projects. And they are quicker and cheaper than humans, for sure.

So maybe in the end this will reduce the need for human contributions to opensource projects.

I just know that as a solo developer AI coding agents enable me to tackle projects I didn't think about event starting before.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#172

Post by dematz »

NoGravitas wrote: post #166
TeMPOraL wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why I keep saying that anthropomorphizing LLMs gives you good high-order intuitions about them, and should not be discouraged. Consider: GP would've been much more correct if they said "It's just a person on a chip." Still wrong, but much less, in qualitative fashion, than they are now.

Just a weird little guy.

A hungry ghost trapped in a jar (https://bsky.app/profile/hikikomorphism.bsky.social/post/3lw...)

Re: AI Usage Policy

#173

Post by sjajshha »

imiric wrote: post #27
arjunbajaj wrote: post #9

I can see this becoming a pretty generally accepted AI usage policy. Very balanced. Covers most of the points I'm sure many of us have experienced here while developing with AI. Most importantly, AI generated code does not substitute human thinking, testing, and clean up/rewrite. On that last point, whenever I've gotten Codex to generate a substantial feature, usually I've had to rewrite a lot of the code to make it…

I agree with you on the policy being balanced. However: > AI generated code does not substitute human thinking, testing, and clean up/rewrite. Isn't that the end goal of these tools and companies producing them? According to the marketing[1], the tools are already "smarter than people in many ways". If that is the case, what are these "ways", and why should we trust a human to do a better job at them? If these "ways"…

[dead]

Re: AI Usage Policy

#174

Post by sjajshha »

weinzierl wrote: post #59
Lucasoato wrote: post #38

> Bad AI drivers will be banned and ridiculed in public. You've been warned. We love to help junior developers learn and grow, but if you're interested in that then don't use AI, and we'll help you. I'm sorry that bad AI drivers have ruined this for you. Finally an AI policy I can agree with :) jokes aside, it might sound a bit too agressive but it's also true that some people have really no shame into overloading yo…

I don't think ridicule is an effective threat for people with no shame to begin with.

[dead]

Re: AI Usage Policy

#175

Post by rsynnott »

pousada wrote: post #74
Sharlin wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is people seriously believe that whatever GPT tells them must be true, because… I don't even know. Just because it sounds self-confident and authoritative? Because computers are supposed to not make mistakes? Because talking computers in science fiction do not make mistakes like that? The fact that LLMs ended up having this particular failure mode, out of all possible failure modes, is incredibly unfortunate…

I think in science fiction it’s one of the most common themes for the talking computer to be utterly horribly wrong, often resulting in complete annihilation of all life on earth. Unless I have been reading very different science fiction I think it’s definitely not that. I think it’s more the confidence and seeming plausibility of LLM answers

In terms of mass exposure, you're probably talking things like Cmdr Data from Star Trek, who was very much on the 'infallible' end of the fictional AI spectrum.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#176

Post by fzaninotto »

arjunbajaj wrote: post #9

I can see this becoming a pretty generally accepted AI usage policy. Very balanced. Covers most of the points I'm sure many of us have experienced here while developing with AI. Most importantly, AI generated code does not substitute human thinking, testing, and clean up/rewrite. On that last point, whenever I've gotten Codex to generate a substantial feature, usually I've had to rewrite a lot of the code to make it…

I agree this could be a template that services like GitHub should propose, the same way as they suggest contributing and code of conduct templates.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#177

Post by Sparkyte »

It is important to write the code yourself so you understand how it functions. I tried vibe coding a little bit. I totally felt like I was reading someone else's code base.

Sanitization practices of AI are bad too.

Let me be clear nothing wrong with AI in your workflow, just be an active participator in your code. Code is not meant to be one and done.

You will go through iteration after iteration, security fix after fix. This is how development is.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#178

Post by nlh »

mg794613 wrote: post #156
Version467 wrote: post #24

The biggest surprise to me with all this low-quality contribution spam is how little shame people apparently have. I have a handful of open source contributions. All of them are for small-ish projects and the complexity of my contributions are in the same ball-park as what I work on day-to-day. And even though I am relatively confident in my competency as a developer, these contributions are probably the most thoroug…

It's because a lot of people that werent skilful werent on your path before. Now that pandora's box has been re-opened, those people feel "they get a second chance at life". It's not that they have no shame, they have no perspective to put that shame. You on the other hand, have for many years honed your craft. The more you learn, the more you discover to learn aka , you realize how little you know. They don't have t…

This is so completely spot on. It’s happening in other fields too, particularly non-coding (but still otherwise specialized or technical) areas. AI is extremely empowering but what’s happening is that people are now showing up in all corners of the world armed with their phone at the end of their outstretched arm saying “Well ChatGPT says…” and getting very upset when told that, no, many apologies, but ChatGPT is wrong here too.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#179

Post by couchdb_ouchdb »

jakozaur wrote: post #6

See x thread for rationale: https://x.com/mitchellh/status/2014433315261124760?s=46&t=FU... “ Ultimately, I want to see full session transcripts, but we don't have enough tool support for that broadly.” I have a side project, git-prompt-story to attach Claude Vode session in GitHub git notes. Though it is not that simple to do automatic (e.g. i need to redact credentials).

You should be able to attach the plan file that you and Claude develop in Plan mode before even starting to code. This should be the source of truth.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#180

Post by zehaeva »

benldrmn wrote: post #161
kleiba wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Other people" might also just be junior devs - I have seen time and again how (over-)confident newbies can be in their code. (I remember one case where a student suspected a bug in the JVM when some Java code of his caused an error.) It's not necessarily maliciousness or laziness, it could simply be enthusiasm paired with lack of experience.

Funny, I had a similar experience TAing “Intro to CS” (first semester C programming course). The student was certain he encountered a compiler bug (pushing back on my assumption there was something wrong with their code, since while compilers do have bugs, they are probably not in the code generation of a nested for loop). After spending a few minutes parsing their totally unindented code, the off-by-one error reveal…

Off topic, but I feel like this could be made into a Zen Koan from The Codeless Code[0]. You're almost there with it!

[0] https://thecodelesscode.com/

Post reply on HN