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

171–180 of 504 posts

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

#171

Post by KingMob »

voidUpdate wrote: post #153
pmarreck wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, that’s why my forks of all their libraries with bugs fixed such as https://github.com/pmarreck/zigimg/commit/52c4b9a557d38fe1e1... will never ever go back to upstream, just because an LLM did it. Lame, but oh well- their loss. Also, this is dumb because anyone who wants fixes like this will have to find a fork like mine with them, which is an increased maintenance burden.

If you know there's a bug, why not just properly fix it and get it merged, instead of outsourcing that fix?

Even before AI, getting a fix into an open source project required a certain level of time and effort. If you prefer to spend your time on other things, and you assume it will eventually get fixed by someone else, using an LLM to fix it just for yourself makes sense.

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

#172

Post by duskdozer »

dakolli wrote: post #97
yla92 wrote: post #82

Zig has a similar stance on no-LLM policy https://codeberg.org/ziglang/zig#strict-no-llm-no-ai-policy

If you rely on llms, you're simply not going to make it. The person who showed their work on the math test is 9/10 times is doing better in life than the person that only knew how to use a calculator. Now how do we think things are going to turn out for the person that doesn't even think they need to learn how to use a calculator. Just like when people started losing their ability to navigate without a GPS/Maps app,…

I agree but only in the very long term. I think short-medium term, it's not going to matter as the MBA types get so caught up in the mania that results matter even less than they normally do.

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

#173

Post by hijnksforall956 »

zozbot234 wrote: post #123
stabbles wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For well-intended open source contributions using GenAI, my current rules of thumb are: * Prefer an issue over a PR (after iterating on the issue, either you or the maintainer can use it as a prompt) * Only open a PR if the review effort is less than the implementation effort. Whether the latter is feasible depends on the project, but in one of the projects I'm involved in it's fairly obvious: it's a package manager…

Unfortunately, LLMs generate useless word salad and nonsense even when working on issues text, you absolutely have to reword the writing from scratch otherwise it's just an annoyance and a complete waste of time. Even a good prompt doesn't help this all that much since it's just how the tool works under the hood: it doesn't have a goal of saying anything specific in the clearest possible way and inwardly rewording it…

[flagged]

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

#174

Post by menaerus »

stingraycharles wrote: post #149
menaerus wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Obviously not, I skimmed through the first two, and it’s not difficult to assess that it’s just fluff that sounds interesting but is actually not.

Implementing a Redis and Kafka rewrite (in Rust) but with workload-aware and self-balancing JIT-like engine deployed at Datadog-scale is no fluff. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

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

#175

Post by oerdier »

dakolli wrote: post #97
yla92 wrote: post #82

Zig has a similar stance on no-LLM policy https://codeberg.org/ziglang/zig#strict-no-llm-no-ai-policy

If you rely on llms, you're simply not going to make it. The person who showed their work on the math test is 9/10 times is doing better in life than the person that only knew how to use a calculator. Now how do we think things are going to turn out for the person that doesn't even think they need to learn how to use a calculator. Just like when people started losing their ability to navigate without a GPS/Maps app,…

One doesn't exclude the other. I still program myself; I actually have more time to do so because the LLM I pay some billionaire for is taking care of the mundane stuff. Before I had to do the mundane stuff myself. What I pay the billionaire is a laughable fraction compared to the time and energy I now have extra to spend on meaningful innovation.

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

#176

Post by eatonphil »

If you're curious to see what everyone else is doing, I did a survey of over 100 major source available projects and four of them banned AI assisted commits (NetBSD, GIMP, Zig, and qemu).

On the other hand projects with AI assisted commits you can easily find include Linux, curl, io_uring, MariaDB, DuckDB, Elasticsearch, and so on. Of the 112 projects surveyed, 70 of them had AI assisted commits already.

https://theconsensus.dev/p/2026/03/02/source-available-proje...

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

#177

Post by duskdozer »

andy12_ wrote: post #114
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?

It doesn't make sense, because GPL means only GPL comes out, not only GPL can go in:

>Many of the most common free-software licenses, especially the permissive licenses, such as the original MIT/X license, BSD licenses (in the three-clause and two-clause forms, though not the original four-clause form), MPL 2.0, and LGPL, are GPL-compatible. That is, their code can be combined with a program under the GPL without conflict, and the new combination would have the GPL applied to the whole (but the other license would not so apply). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility#GPL_comp...

A model that contains no GPL code makes sense so that people using non-GPL licenses don't violate it.

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

#178

Post by [deleted] »

advancespace wrote: post #156
ptnpzwqd wrote: post #6

I think this is a reasonable decision (although maybe increasingly insufficient). It doesn't really matter what your stance on AI is, the problem is the increased review burden on OSS maintainers. In the past, the code itself was a sort of proof of effort - you would need to invest some time and effort on your PRs, otherwise they would be easily dismissed at a glance. That is no longer the case, as LLMs can quickly g…

[flagged]

[deleted]

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

#179

Post by amelius »

ptnpzwqd wrote: post #6

I think this is a reasonable decision (although maybe increasingly insufficient). It doesn't really matter what your stance on AI is, the problem is the increased review burden on OSS maintainers. In the past, the code itself was a sort of proof of effort - you would need to invest some time and effort on your PRs, otherwise they would be easily dismissed at a glance. That is no longer the case, as LLMs can quickly g…

> It doesn't really matter what your stance on AI is, the problem is the increased review burden on OSS maintainers.

But the maintainers can use AI too, for their reviewing.

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

#180

Post by menaerus »

grey-area wrote: post #116
menaerus wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Their profile generally comes up here on HN very often with Dunning-Kruger effect like comments so it makes me believe it is no AI. AI would do a better analysis, for the better or worse.
Post reply on HN