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

201–210 of 293 posts

Re: AI Usage Policy

#201

Post by Applejinx »

Lucasoato wrote: post #38

> Bad AI drivers will be banned and ridiculed in public. You've been warned. We love to help junior developers learn and grow, but if you're interested in that then don't use AI, and we'll help you. I'm sorry that bad AI drivers have ruined this for you. Finally an AI policy I can agree with :) jokes aside, it might sound a bit too agressive but it's also true that some people have really no shame into overloading yo…

Doubly so as these bad AI drivers are trading away even the possibility of having attention. It's very possible to render yourself senseless through a habit of deference. Even if you're coming up with ways to optimize AI responses, you are just trying to make a more superior superior to defer to.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#202

Post by Retr0id »

Ntrails wrote: post #69
alansaber wrote: post #11

"Pull requests created by AI must have been fully verified with human use." should always be a bare minimum requirement.

> "Pull requests [] must have been fully verified with human use." I would expect this is entirely uncontroversial and the AI qualifier redundant.

If you have good tests, certain types of change can be merged without manual testing. One problem specific to AI is that it has a tendency to game/bypass/nerf/disable tests, as opposed to actually making the code do the correct thing.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#203

Post by empath75 »

jakozaur wrote: post #6

See x thread for rationale: https://x.com/mitchellh/status/2014433315261124760?s=46&t=FU... “ Ultimately, I want to see full session transcripts, but we don't have enough tool support for that broadly.” I have a side project, git-prompt-story to attach Claude Vode session in GitHub git notes. Though it is not that simple to do automatic (e.g. i need to redact credentials).

On our team, we have discussed attaching claude transcripts to jira tickets, not github PRs (though the PRs are attached to tickets)

Re: AI Usage Policy

#204

Post by Applejinx »

njhnjhnjh wrote: post #182
alansaber wrote: post #11

"Pull requests created by AI must have been fully verified with human use." should always be a bare minimum requirement.

AI is so smart these days that I typically just ask Claude to verify the code for me. This sort of request may have made sense in the old days but as the quality of generated code rapidly increases, so does the necessity of human intervention decrease.

If you care so little, why are you even prompting at all? Surely you can leave it to its own devices without troubling it with your wishes? It seems like the farther you go down this path, the more likely it is that it'll have something better to do.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#205

Post by Applejinx »

embedding-shape wrote: post #51
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…

> To me it sounds like "text and code" are free from the controversy surrounding AI-generated media. It really isn't, don't you recall the "protests" against Microsoft starting to use repositories hosted at GitHub for training their own coding models? Lots of articles and sentiments everywhere at the time. Seems to have died down though, probably because most developers seemingly at this point use LLMs in some capaci…

I bet they aren't honoring the terms of the MIT license I use for my repos. It's pretty lenient and I bet they're still not compliant.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#206

Post by Applejinx »

rikschennink wrote: post #191
NiloCK wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

re: MIT license, I generally tell people they have to credit and that's functionally the only requirement. Are they crediting? That's really the lowest imaginable bar, they're not asked to do ANYTHING else.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#207

Post by __loam »

nlh wrote: post #178
mg794613 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because a lot of people that werent skilful werent on your path before. Now that pandora's box has been re-opened, those people feel "they get a second chance at life". It's not that they have no shame, they have no perspective to put that shame. You on the other hand, have for many years honed your craft. The more you learn, the more you discover to learn aka , you realize how little you know. They don't have t…

This is so completely spot on. It’s happening in other fields too, particularly non-coding (but still otherwise specialized or technical) areas. AI is extremely empowering but what’s happening is that people are now showing up in all corners of the world armed with their phone at the end of their outstretched arm saying “Well ChatGPT says…” and getting very upset when told that, no, many apologies, but ChatGPT is wro…

It's why artists despise the AI art users. In that field it isn't simply them trying to contribute but instead insisting that you wasted your time learning to create art and if you're a professional you deserve to starve. All while being completely ignorant to the medium or the process.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#208

Post by embedding-shape »

Applejinx wrote: post #205
embedding-shape wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To me it sounds like "text and code" are free from the controversy surrounding AI-generated media. It really isn't, don't you recall the "protests" against Microsoft starting to use repositories hosted at GitHub for training their own coding models? Lots of articles and sentiments everywhere at the time. Seems to have died down though, probably because most developers seemingly at this point use LLMs in some capaci…

I bet they aren't honoring the terms of the MIT license I use for my repos. It's pretty lenient and I bet they're still not compliant.

And to be frank, why would they? Who would stop them? Would take a massive case for them to be compelled to be stopped, and no one seems to care about attribution anymore, or licensing at all in most cases. Companies are using torrents to download copyrighted material, stuff individuals gone to prison for before, and they hardly even get a slap on the wrist.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#209

Post by pixl97 »

meindnoch wrote: post #123
monegator wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The biggest surprise to me with all this low-quality contribution spam is how little shame people apparently have. ever had a client second guess you by replying you a screenshot from GPT? ever asked anything in a public group only to have a complete moron replying you with a screenshot from GPT or - at least a bit of effor there - a copy/paste of the wall of text? no, people have no shame. they have a need for a l…

Our CEO chiming in on a technical discussion between engineers: by the way, this is what Claude says: *some completely made-up bullshit*

I do want to counter that in the past before AI, the CEO would just chime in with some completely off the wall bullshit from a consultant.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#210

Post by kkukshtel »

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…

This is one thing I find funny about all the discussion around AI watermarking. Yes for absolutely nefarious bad actors it is incredibly important, but what seems clear is that the majority of AI users do absolutely nothing to conceal obvious tells of AI generation. Turns out people are shameless!

Two immediate ones I can think of:

- The yellow hue/sepia tone of any image coming out of ChatGPT

- People responding to text by starting with "Good Question!" or inserting hard-to-memorize-or-type unicode symbols like → into text where they obviously wouldn't have used that and have no history of using it.

Post reply on HN