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

221–230 of 293 posts

Re: AI Usage Policy

#221

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

mg794613 wrote: post #156
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…

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…

It's not as if there weren't that sort of people in our profession even before the rise of LLMs, as evidenced by the not infrequent comments about "gatekeeping" and "nobody needs to know academic stuff in a real day-to-day job" on HN.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#222

Post by wccrawford »

flexagoon wrote: post #33
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…

Keep in mind that many people also contribute to big open source projects just because they believe it will look good ok their CV/GitHub and help them get a job. They don't care about helping anyone, they just want to write "contributed to Ghostty" in their application.

It's worse. Some of them are required to contribute to an existing project of their choice for some course they're taking.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#223

Post by krzyk »

It always amazes me why image/videos/audio generated by AI are treated differently from code.

Are images somehow better? If one draws, is he better the one that writes code? Why protect one and not the other. Or why protect any form at all?

Re: AI Usage Policy

#224

Post by zzzeek »

the endless issue with coding policy statements like this is that the people who need to read them the most are the ones who couldn't care less and don't read anything.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#225

Post by twoodfin »

dw_arthur wrote: post #192

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.

I wish HN had a title tag for AI-generated posts, like it used to have for PDF’s and still does for year-of-publication.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#226

Post by ryandrake »

OGEnthusiast wrote: post #200
pluralmonad wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly. Sadly, low-trust America has become the default where most people live. There are still nice, small-town, local shopping, suburban high-trust enclaves here and there, but as soon as you go online or deal with a business with more than a handful of locations, you're back in the low-trust grifting zone.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#227

Post by ryandrake »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #120
buggy6257 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your boss sounds hilarious naive to how the world works.

This is a good heuristic, and it's how most things in life operate. It's the reason you can just buy food in stores without any worry that it might hurt you[0] - there's potential for million ${local currency} fines, lawsuits, customer loss and jail time serving as strong incentive for food manufacturers and vendors to not fuck this up. The same is the case with drugs, utilities, car safety and other important aspect…

> It's the reason you can just buy food in stores without any worry that it might hurt you[0] - there's potential for million ${local currency} fines, lawsuits, customer loss [...]

We are currently facing a political climate trying to tear many of these safeguards down. Some people really think "caveat emptor" is some kind of natural, efficient, ideal way of life.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#228

Post by ryandrake »

pousada wrote: post #79
ionwake wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Like with all things in life shame is best in moderation. Too little or too much shame can lead to issue. Problem is no one tells you what too little or too much actually is and there are many different situations where you need to figure it out on your own. So I think sometimes people just get it wrong but ultimately everyone tries their best. Truly malicious shameless people are extremely rare in my experience. For…

I feel like there is a growing number of people who just can't even recognize or acknowledge shame. It's not even an emotion they are capable of or understand.

So many people now respond to "You shouldn't do that..." with one or more of:

- But, I'm allowed to.

- But, it's legal.

- But, the rules don't say I can't.

- But, nobody is stopping me.

The shared cultural understanding of right and wrong is shrinking. More and more, there's just can and can't.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#229

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

tveita wrote: post #168
Sharlin wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is people seriously believe that whatever GPT tells them must be true, because… I don't even know. Just because it sounds self-confident and authoritative? Because computers are supposed to not make mistakes? Because talking computers in science fiction do not make mistakes like that? The fact that LLMs ended up having this particular failure mode, out of all possible failure modes, is incredibly unfortunate…

I think people's attitude would be better calibrated to reality if LLM providers were legally required to call their service "a random drunk guy on the subway" E.g. "A random drunk guy on the subway suggested that this wouldn't be a problem if we were running the latest SOL server version" "Huh, I guess that's worth testing"

There’s a non-zero number of people who would get a chuckle out of a browser extension at replaces every occurrence of LLM or AI with a random drunk guy on the subway .

Re: AI Usage Policy

#230

Post by ryandrake »

weinzierl wrote: post #189
wpietri wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No society can function without enforced rules. Most people do the pro-social thing most of the time. But for the rest, society must create negative experiences that help train people to do the right thing. What negative experience do you think should instead be created for people breaking these rules?

Temporary or permanent social exclusion, and consequently the loss of future cooperative benefits. A permanent public internet pillory isn’t just useless against the worst offenders, who are shameless anyway. It’s also permanently damaging to those who are still learning societal norms. The Ghostty AI policy lacks any nuance in this regard. No consideration for the age or experience of the offender. No consideration…

Thanks to Social Media bubbles, there's no social exclusion possible anymore. Shameless people just go online find each other and reinforce each others' shamelessness. I bet there's a Facebook group for people who don't return their shopping carts.
Post reply on HN