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

Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 308 posts

Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

#21

Post by FrojoS »

wadim wrote: post #14
SamuelAdams wrote: post #4

My question on AI generated contributions and content in general: on a long enough timeline, with ever improving advancements in AI, how can people reliably tell the difference between human and AI generated efforts? Sure now it is easy, but in 3-10 years AI will get significantly better. It is a lot like the audio quality of an MP3 recording. It is not perfect (lossless audio is better), but for the majority of user…

Why accept PR's in this case, if the maintainers themselves can ask their favorite LLM to implement a feature/fix an issue?

Because it might require time consuming testing, iterations, documentation etc.

If everything the maintainer wants can (hypothetically) be one-shotted, then there is no need to accept PR's at all. Just allow forks in case of open source.

Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

#22

Post by jruohonen »

theptip wrote: post #16

> disclosure if "a significant portion of the contribution is taken from a tool without manual modification", and labeling of such contributions with "a clear disclaimer or a machine-readable tag like '[AI-Generated]'. Quixotic, unworkable, pointless. It’s fundamentally impossible (at least without a level of surveillance that would obviously be unavceptable) to prove the “artisanal hand-crafted human code” label. >…

Debian has always been Debian and thus there are these purist opinions, but perhaps my take too would be something along the "one-strike-and-you-are-out" kind of a policy (i.e., you submit slop without being able to explain your submission in any way) already followed in some projects:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47109952

Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

#23

Post by iLoveOncall »

SamuelAdams wrote: post #4

My question on AI generated contributions and content in general: on a long enough timeline, with ever improving advancements in AI, how can people reliably tell the difference between human and AI generated efforts? Sure now it is easy, but in 3-10 years AI will get significantly better. It is a lot like the audio quality of an MP3 recording. It is not perfect (lossless audio is better), but for the majority of user…

> but in 3-10 years AI will get significantly better

Crystal ball or time machine?

Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

#24

Post by __alexs »

lpcvoid wrote: post #10
hombre_fatal wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say "on a long enough timeline", but you already can't tell today in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing. I think a lot of anti-LLM opinions just come from interacting with the lowest effort LLM slop and someone not realizing that it's really a problem with a low value person behind it. It's why "no AI allowed" is pointless; high value contributors won't follow it because they know how to use it pro…

All LLM-output is slop. There's no good LLM output. It's stolen code, stolen literature, stolen media condensed into the greatest heist of the 21. century. Perfect capitalism - big LLM companies don't need to pay royalties to humans, while selling access to a service which generates monthly revenue.

I came from a poor background and stole pretty much all the textbooks I used to learn programming as a kid. I also stole all the music I listened to while studying them. Is everything I write slop for the same reason?

Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

#25

Post by coldpie »

graemep wrote: post #18
coldpie wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but if AI is just as good, doesn't that just mean more good PRs? If you believe the outputs of LLMs are derivative products of the materials the LLMs were trained on (which is a position I lean towards myself, but I also understand the viewpoint of those who disagree), then no, that's not a good thing, because it would be a license violation to accept those derived products without following the original material's…

> If you believe the outputs of LLMs are derivative products of the materials the LLMs were trained on In that case a lot of proprietary software is in breach of copyleft licences. Its probably by far the commonest breach. > You are now party to violating the original materials' copyright by accepting AI generated code. That's ethically dubious That is arguable. Is it always ethically dubious to breach a law? If not,…

> In that case a lot of proprietary software is in breach of copyleft licences. Its probably by far the commonest breach.

Sure, but this doesn't really seem relevant to the conversation. Someone else violating software license terms doesn't justify me (or Debian, in the case of TFA) doing so.

> Is it always ethically dubious to breach a law?

I'm not really concerned with the law, here. I think it is ethically dubious to use someone else's work without compensating them in the manner they declared. Copyright law happens to be the method we've used for a couple hundred years to standardize the discussion about that compensation, and sometimes enforce it. Breaching the law doesn't really enter into the conversation, except as a way our society agrees to hold everyone to a minimum ethical standard.

Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

#26

Post by vladms »

Very reasonable stance. I see reviewing and accepting a PR is a question of trust - you trust the submitter to have done the most he can for the PR to be correct and useful.

Something might be required now as some people might think that just asking an LLM is "the most he can done", but it's not about using AI it's about being aware and responsible about using it.

Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

#28

Post by aerodexis »

sheepscreek wrote: post #8
SamuelAdams wrote: post #4

My question on AI generated contributions and content in general: on a long enough timeline, with ever improving advancements in AI, how can people reliably tell the difference between human and AI generated efforts? Sure now it is easy, but in 3-10 years AI will get significantly better. It is a lot like the audio quality of an MP3 recording. It is not perfect (lossless audio is better), but for the majority of user…

Precisely. “AI” contributions should be seen as an extension of the individual. If anything, they could ask that the account belong to a person and not be a second bot only account. Basically, a person’s own reputation should be on the line.

Interesting argument for AI ethics in general. It takes the form of "guns don't kill people - people kill people".

Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

#29

Post by techwizrd »

theptip wrote: post #16

> disclosure if "a significant portion of the contribution is taken from a tool without manual modification", and labeling of such contributions with "a clear disclaimer or a machine-readable tag like '[AI-Generated]'. Quixotic, unworkable, pointless. It’s fundamentally impossible (at least without a level of surveillance that would obviously be unavceptable) to prove the “artisanal hand-crafted human code” label. >…

I agree. If the real concern is the flood of low-effort slop, unmaintainable patches, accidental code reuse, or licensing violations, then the process should target those directly. The useful work is improving review and triage so those problems get filtered out early. The genie is already out of the bottle with AI tooling, so broad “no AI” rules feel like a reaction to the tool and do not seem especially useful or enforceable.

Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

#30

Post by lpcvoid »

__alexs wrote: post #24
lpcvoid wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All LLM-output is slop. There's no good LLM output. It's stolen code, stolen literature, stolen media condensed into the greatest heist of the 21. century. Perfect capitalism - big LLM companies don't need to pay royalties to humans, while selling access to a service which generates monthly revenue.

I came from a poor background and stole pretty much all the textbooks I used to learn programming as a kid. I also stole all the music I listened to while studying them. Is everything I write slop for the same reason?

No. You're a human, who went through real life experiences. You learned, developed as a human being. You made mistakes and grew from them. You did what you have to do to advance. What you output has intrinsic value because of all this. I argue that even when you roll your face on your keyboard, the output is more valuable than ten pages of slop output from an LLM, since it's human, with all the history, experience, emotions and character which came before it.
Post reply on HN