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

LLM policy?

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 145 posts

Re: LLM policy?

#21

Post by PeaceTed »

vineyardmike wrote: post #6

I've seen an uptick in LLM generated bug reports from coworkers . A employee of my company (but not someone I work with regularly) used one of the CLI LLMs to search through logs for errors, and then automatically cut (hundreds!) of bugs to (sometimes) the correct teams. Turns out it was the result of some manager's mandate to "try integrating AI into our workflow". The resulting email was probably the least professi…

Alas this is an issue of LLM generated code. Increased productivity but lessened understanding. If you can increase productivity while also increasing understanding then that will be a decent middle ground.

All comes down to accountability.

Re: LLM policy?

#22

Post by bsder »

A much bigger problem is that when an AI/LLM coughs up code, you have absolutely no idea what the copyright or license is.

Re: LLM policy?

#23

Post by SleekoNiko »

CGamesPlay wrote: post #7

I make a lot of drive-by contributions, and I use AI coding tools. I submitted my first PR that is a cross between those two recently. It's somewhere between "vibe-coded" and "vibe-engineered", where I definitely read the resulting code, had the agent make multiple revisions, and deployed the result on my own infrastructure before submitting a PR. In the PR I clearly stated that it was done by a coding agent. I can't…

If I were the maintainer, and you specified up front that your PR was largely written by an LLM, I would appreciate it. I may prioritize it lower than other PRs, perhaps, but that's about it.

I think it's also important to disclose how rigorously you tested your changes, too. I would hate to spend my time looking at a change that was never even tested by a human.

It sounds like you do both of these. Judging by the other replies, it seems that other reviewers may take a harsher stance, given the heavily polarized nature of LLMs. Still, if you made the changes and you're up front about your methodology, why not? In the worst case, your PR gets closed and everybody moves on.

Re: LLM policy?

#24

Post by PeaceTed »

jmyeet wrote: post #14

Some years ago I read the Neal Stephenson book Anathem . SPOILERS: it has a version of the Internet called the Reticulum and one thing I remember is that it was filled with garbage. True information subtly changed multiple times until it was garbage. And there were agents to see through the garbage. I imagined this to be a neverending arms race. Honestly, this is kind of where I see LLM generated content going where…

Considering how energy intensive generative content is, there is a good chance that it is already becoming a sizable share of energy use for the internet.

Re: LLM policy?

#25

Post by ddxv »

I've seen an interesting politically motivated one. It didn't appear to be a bot, just a user from China:

https://github.com/umami-software/umami/pull/3678

The goal is "Taiwan" -> "Taiwan, Province of China" but via the premise of updating to UN ISO standards, which of course does not allow Taiwan.

The comment after was interesting with how reasonable it sounds: "This is the technical specification of the ISO 3166-1 international standard, just like we follow other ISO standards. As an open-source project, it follows international technical standards to ensure data interoperability and professionalism."

The politics of the intent of the PR was masked. Luckily, it was still a bit hamfisted. The PR incorrectly changed many things and the user stated their political intention in the original PR (the above is from a later comment).

Re: LLM policy?

#26

Post by croes »

somenameforme wrote: post #12
SoftTalker wrote: post #4

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.

In some ways I'm starting to enjoy this. Do you remember the 419 scams? 'Hi, I'm a Nigerian prince named Michael Jordan. Give me $50 so I can buy some chemicals to clean a bunch of money I secretly stowed away and I'll send you $5000.' People actually used to fall for that. Of course some people probably still would (and a lot more certainly gets blocked by spam blockers) but I think overall society grew less substan…

> I think more people are becoming more suspicious of things that were, in fact, fake all along.

Sadly they also become suspicious of things that are, in fact, facts all along.

Video or photo evidence of a crime become useless the better AI gets

Re: LLM policy?

#27

Post by PeaceTed »

bsder wrote: post #22

A much bigger problem is that when an AI/LLM coughs up code, you have absolutely no idea what the copyright or license is.

Copyright in the context of LLM's is kind of weird. It doesn't explicitly copy others code but it does lean heavily on the structure of it. Is it evidence of copying prior work or is it fair use? Alas, we don't really have any legal bearing that can handle this yet.

If it is copying prior work, then you are right that there would be a lot of cross licensing bleed through. The opposite is also true in that it could take proprietary code structure and liberate it into GPL 3 for instance. Again what is the legal standing on this?

Years back there was a source code leak of Microsoft Office. Immediately the Libre office team put up restrictions to ensure that contributors didn't even look at it for fear that it would end up into their project and become a leverage point against the whole project. Now with LLM's it can be difficult to know where anything comes from.

Re: LLM policy?

#28

Post by 0xfffafaCrash »

SoftTalker wrote: post #4

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.

> There’s already more human produced content in the world than anyone could ever hope to consume, we don’t need more from AI.

Even if you think the harms of AI/machine generated content outweigh the good, this is not a winning argument.

People don’t just consume arbitrary content for the sake of consuming any existing content. That’s rarely the point of it. People look for all kinds of things that don’t exist yet — quite a lot of it referring to things that are only now known or relevant in the given moment or to the given niche audience requesting it. Much of it could likely never exist if it weren’t possible to produce it on demand and which would not be valuable if you had to wait for a human to make it.

Re: LLM policy?

#29

Post by ori_b »

SoftTalker wrote: post #4

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.

I think we should start calling LLM-generated data 'dis-content'.

Re: LLM policy?

#30

Post by alex77456 »

b00ty4breakfast wrote: post #13
CGamesPlay wrote: post #7

I make a lot of drive-by contributions, and I use AI coding tools. I submitted my first PR that is a cross between those two recently. It's somewhere between "vibe-coded" and "vibe-engineered", where I definitely read the resulting code, had the agent make multiple revisions, and deployed the result on my own infrastructure before submitting a PR. In the PR I clearly stated that it was done by a coding agent. I can't…

"should I stop doing this thing that people are explicitly saying they don't want me to do or should I keep doing this thing that people are explicitly saying they don't want me to do???"

As with evertything, there's always nuance. If everyone followed similar midset to the comment you were replying to, likely llm generated pr issues wouldn't be as much of a problem and we wouldn't even be here discussing it
Post reply on HN