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

Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 427 posts

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#191

Post by amake »

linsomniac wrote: post #156
alganet wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you show these 3 things to us?

Not OP, but: I'm getting towards the end of a vibe coded ZFS storage backend to ganeti that includes the ability to live migrate VMs to another host by: taking snapshot and replicating it to target, pausing VM, taking another incremental snapshot and replicating it, and then unpausing the VM on the new destination machine. https://github.com/linsomniac/ganeti/tree/newzfs Other LLM tools I've built this week: This aft…

None of this seems relevant to the original claim: "Software projects that somehow are 100% human developed will not be competitive with AI assisted or written projects"

I don't feel like it's meaningful to discuss the "competitiveness" of a handful of bespoke local or internal tools.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#192

Post by dawnerd »

phire wrote: post #77
JonChesterfield wrote: post #22

Interesting. Harder line than the LLVM one found at https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#ai-generated-cont... I'm very old man shouting at clouds about this stuff. I don't want to review code the author doesn't understand and I don't want to merge code neither of us understand.

I do use GitHub copilot on my personal projects. But I refuse to use it as anything more than a fancy autocomplete. If it suggests code that's pretty close to what I was about to type anyway, I accept it. This ensures that I still understand my code, that there shouldn't be any hallucination derived bugs, [1] and there really shouldn't be any questions about copyright if I was about to type it. I find using copilot t…

That’s how I use it too. I’ve tried to make agent mode work but it ends up taking just as long if not longer than just making the edits myself. And unless you’re very narrowly specific models like sonnet will go off track making changes you never asked for. At least gpt4.1 is pretty lazy I guess.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#193

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

ants_everywhere wrote: post #123
blibble wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but rather the risk that AI will spit out code from its training set that belongs to another project. this is everything that it spits out

This is an uninformed take

No, this is an uninformed take.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#194

Post by tobyhinloopen »

Groxx wrote: post #127
SchemaLoad wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've started seeing this at work with coworkers using LLMs to generate code reviews. They submit comments which are way above their skill level which almost trick you in to thinking they are correct since only a very skilled developer would make these suggestions. And then ultimately you end up wasting tons of time proving how these suggestions are wrong. Spending far more time than the person pasting the suggestions…

By far the largest review-effort PRs of my career have been in the past year, due to mid-sized LLM-built features. Multiple rounds of other signoffs saying "lgtm" with only minor style comments only for me to finally read it and see that no, it is not even remotely acceptable and we have several uses built by the same team that would fail immediately if it was merged, to say nothing of the thousands of other users th…

I think a future with LLM coding requires much more tests, both testing happy and bad flows.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#195

Post by iechoz6H »

kgwxd wrote: post #55
deadbabe wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a software is truly wide open source in the sense of “do whatever the fuck you want with this code, we don’t care”, then it has nothing to fear from AI.

Can't release someone else's proprietary source under a "do whatever the fuck you want" license and actually do whatever the fuck you want, without getting sued.

You can do that but the fact you don't get sued is more luck than judgement.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#196

Post by rvnx »

amake wrote: post #188
EGreg wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you need to carefully review code? That is so 2024. You’re bottlenecking the process and are at a disadvantage when the AI could be working 24/7. We have AI agents that have been trained to review thousands of PRs that are produced by other, generative agents, and together they have already churned out much more software than human teams can write in a year. AI “assistance” is a short intermediate phase, li…

> We have AI agents that have been trained to review thousands of PRs that are produced by other, generative agents, and together they have already churned out much more software than human teams can write in a year. Was your comment tongue-in-cheek? If not, where is this huge mass of AI-generated software?

All around you, just that it doesn’t make sense for developers to reveal that a lot of their work is now about chunking and refining the specifications written by the product owner.

Admitting such is like admitting you are overpaid for your job, and that a 20 USD AI-agent can do better and faster than you for 75% of the work.

Is it easy to admit that you have learnt skills for 10+ years that are progressively already getting replaced by a machine ? (like thousands of jobs in the past).

More and more, developer is going to be a monkey job where your only task is to make sure there is enough coal in the steam machine.

Compilers destroyed the jobs of developers writing assembler code, they had to adapt. They insisted that hand-written assembler was better.

Here is the same, except you write code in natural language. It may not be optimal in all situations but it often gets the job done.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#197

Post by TeMPOraL »

behringer wrote: post #162
deadbabe wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a software is truly wide open source in the sense of “do whatever the fuck you want with this code, we don’t care”, then it has nothing to fear from AI.

Open source is about sharing the source code. You generally need to force companies to share their source code derived from your project, or else companies will simply take it, modify it, and never release their changes,and charge for it too.

Sharing is caring, being forced to share does not foster care.

Companies don't care, so if you release something as open source that's relevant to them, "companies will simply take it, modify it, and never release their changes,and charge for it too" - but that is what companies do, that is their very nature, and you knew that when you first opened the source.

You also knew that when you picked a license, and it's a major reason for the particular choice you made. Want to force companies to share? Pick GPL.

If you decide to yoke a dragon, and it instead snatches your shiny lure and flies away to its cave, you don't get to complain that the dragon isn't playing nice and doesn't want to become your beast of burden. If you picked MIT as your license, that's on you.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#198

Post by brabel »

devmor wrote: post #182
AJ007 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what experienced developers don't want random AI contributions from no-knowledge "developers" contributing to a project. In any situation, if a human is review AI code line by line that would tie up humans for years, even ignoring anything legally. #1 There will be no verifiable way to prove something was AI generated beyond early models. #2 Software projects that somehow are 100% human developed will no…

None of your claims here are based in factual assertion. These are unproven, wishful fantasies that may or may not be eventually true. No one should be evaluating or writing policy based on fantasy.

Are you familiar with the futures market? It’s all about what you call fantasy ! Similarly, if you are determining the strategy of your organization, all you have to help you is “fantasy”. By the time evidence exists in sufficient quantity your lunch has already been eaten long ago. A good CEO is one that can see where the market is going before anyone else. You may be right that AI is just a fad , but given how much the big companies and all the major startups in the last few years are investing on it, it’s overwhelmingly a fringe position to have at this point.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#199

Post by rvnx »

0x457 wrote: post #148
mcoliver wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

80-90% of Claude is now written by Claude

And whose lunch is it eating?

Your lunch, the developers behind Claude are very rich and do not need their developer career since they have enough to retire

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#200

Post by bredren »

amake wrote: post #189
viraptor wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's happening slowly all around. It's not obvious because people producing high quality stuff have no incentive at all to mark their changes as AI-generated. But there are also local tools generated faster than you could adjust existing tools to do what you want. I'm running 3 things now just for myself that I generated from scratch instead of trying to send feature requests to existing apps I can buy. It's only goi…

> It's not obvious because people producing high quality stuff have no incentive at all to mark their changes as AI-generated I feel like we'd be hearing from business that crushed their competition by delivering faster or with fewer people. Where are those businesses? > But there are also local tools generated This is really not the same thing as the original claim ("Software projects that somehow are 100% human dev…

This is happening right now and it won’t be obvious until the liquidity events provide enough cover for victory lap story telling.

The very knowledge that an organization is experiencing hyper acceleration due to its successful adoption of AI across the enterprise is proprietary.

There are no HBS case studies about businesses that successfully established and implemented strategic pillars for AI because the pillars were likely written in the past four months.

Post reply on HN