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

191–200 of 293 posts

Re: AI Usage Policy

#191

Post by rikschennink »

NiloCK wrote: post #181
rikschennink wrote: post #40

> No AI-generated media is allowed (art, images, videos, audio, etc.). Text and code are the only acceptable AI-generated content, per the other rules in this policy. I find this distinction between media and text/code so interesting. To me it sounds like they think "text and code" are free from the controversy surrounding AI-generated media. But judging from how AI companies grabbed all the art, images, videos, and…

It's not that code is distinct or "less than" art. It's an authority and boundaries question. I've written a fair amount of open source code. On anything like a per-capita basis, I'm way above median in terms of what I've contributed (without consent) to the training of these tools. I'm also specifically "in the crosshairs" in terms of work loss from automation of software development. I don't find it hard to convinc…

Alright, if I understand correctly, what you're saying is they make this distinction because they operate in the "text and code" space but not in the media space.

I've written _a lot_ of open source MIT licensed code, and I'm on the fence about that being part of the training data. I've published it as much for other people to use for learning purposes as I did for fun.

I also build and sell closed source commercial JavaScript packages, and more than likely those have ended up in the training data as well. Obviously without consent. So this is why I feel strong about making this separation between code and media, from my perspective it all has the same problem.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#192

Post by dw_arthur »

I think a social norm of disclosing AI use at all times would be great. People and companies should also be held 100% accountable for anything created using AI.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#193

Post by [deleted] »

nathanaldensr wrote: post #118
Suzuran wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a lot of ways he is, despite witnessing a lot of how the sausage is made directly. Honestly, I think at at least half of it is wanting to convince himself that the world still functions in ways that make sense to him rather than admit that it's mostly grifters grifting all the way down.

The high-trust Boomer brain cannot comprehend the actual low-trust society of grifters in which we live.

[deleted]

Re: AI Usage Policy

#194

Post by weinzierl »

conartist6 wrote: post #62
weinzierl wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The biggest surprise to me with all this low-quality contribution spam is how little shame people apparently have." And this is one half of why I think "Bad AI drivers will be [..] ridiculed in public." isn't a good clause. The other is that ridiculing others, not matter what, is just no decent behavior. Putting it as a rule in your policy document makes it only worse.

Getting to live by the rules of decency is a privilege now denied us. I can accept that but I don't have to like it or like the people who would abuse my trust for their personal gain. Tit for tat

It is well supported that TFT with a delayed mirroring component and Generous Tit for Tat where you sometimes still cooperate after defection are pretty succesful.

What is written in the Ghostty AI policy lacks any nuance or generosity. It's more like a Grim Trigger strategy than Tit for Tat.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#195

Post by OvbiousError »

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"…

This is such a good write-up and something I'm struggling with very hard. Does quality of code in the traditional sense even matter anymore if e.g. CC can work with said code anyway. I haven't had imposter's in a long time, but it's spiking hard now. Whenever i read or write code I feel like I'm an incompetent dev doing obsolete things.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#196

Post by tzs »

> No AI-generated media is allowed (art, images, videos, audio, etc.). Text and code are the only acceptable AI-generated content, per the other rules in this policy

What's the reason for this?

Media is the most likely thing I'd consider using AI for as part of a contribution to an open source project.

My code would be hand crafted by me. Any AI use would be similar to Google use: a way to search for examples and explanations if I'm unclear on something. Said examples and explanations would then be read, and after I understand what is going on I'd write my code.

Any documentation I contributed would also be hand written. However, if I wanted to include a diagram in that documentation I might give AI a try. It can't be worse than my zero talent attempts to make something in OmniGraffle or worse a photograph of my attempt to draw a nice diagram on paper.

I'd have expected this to be the least concerning use of AI.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#197

Post by andy99 »

> Issues and discussions can use AI assistance but must have a full human-in-the-loop. This means that any content generated with AI must have been reviewed and edited by a human before submission.

I can see this being a problem. I read a thread here a few weeks ago where someone was called out on submitting an AI slop article they wrote with all the usual tells. They finally admitted it but said something to the effect they reviewed it and stood behind every line.

The problem with AI writing is at least some people appear incapable of critically reviewing it. Writing something yourself eliminates this problem because it forces you to pick your words (there could be other problems of course).

So the AI-blind will still submit slop under the policy but believe themselves to have reviewed it and “stand behind” it.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#198

Post by OGEnthusiast »

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…

> The biggest surprise to me with all this low-quality contribution spam is how little shame people apparently have.

My guess is it's mostly people from countries with a culture that reward shameless behavior.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#199

Post by wang_li »

ionwake wrote: post #58
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…

TBH Im not sure if this is a "growing up in a good area" vibe. But over the last decade or so I have had to slowly learn the people around me have no sense of shame. This wasnt their fault, but mine. Society has changed and if you don't adapt you'll end up confused and abused. I am not saying one has to lose their shame, but at best, understand it.

The adaption is going to be that competent, knowledgeable people will begin forming informal and formal networks of people they know are skilled and intelligent and begin to scorn the people who aren't skilled and aren't intelligent. They will be less willing to work with people who don't have a proven record of competence. This results in greater stratification and harder for people who aren't already part of the in group to break in.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#200

Post by OGEnthusiast »

pluralmonad wrote: post #186
nathanaldensr wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The high-trust Boomer brain cannot comprehend the actual low-trust society of grifters in which we live.

I don't agree with this blanket statement. The internet is low trust for lots of reasons, but regular (read small, proximal/spatiotemporally constrained) communities still exist and are not grifters all the way down. Acknowledging that distant strangers are not trustworthy in the traditional sense seems reasonable, but is categorically different than addressing natural social groups (small and local).

Yes, and most young Americans are locked out of those small, high-trust suburbs due to high housing prices. So instead they get to experience the magic of low-trust America first-hand, hence the disconnect between the young and the boomers.
Post reply on HN