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

231–240 of 293 posts

Re: AI Usage Policy

#231

Post by alfalfasprout »

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…

This is easily the most spot-on comment I've read on HN in a long time.

The humility of understanding what you don't know and the limitations of that is out the window for many people now. I see time and time again the idea that "expertise is dead". Yet it's crystal clear it's not. But those people cannot understand why.

It all boils down to a simple reality: you can't understand why something is fundamentally bad if you don't understand it at all.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#232

Post by maxnevermind »

alansaber wrote: post #11

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

> verified with human use

Quality of that verification matters, people who might use AI tend to cut corners. This does not completely solve problem with AI slop imo and solution quality. You ask Claude Code to go and implement a new feature in a complex code base, it will, the code might even work, but implementation might have subtle issues and might be missing the broader vision of the repo.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#233

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

rsynnott wrote: post #175
pousada wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think in science fiction it’s one of the most common themes for the talking computer to be utterly horribly wrong, often resulting in complete annihilation of all life on earth. Unless I have been reading very different science fiction I think it’s definitely not that. I think it’s more the confidence and seeming plausibility of LLM answers

In terms of mass exposure, you're probably talking things like Cmdr Data from Star Trek, who was very much on the 'infallible' end of the fictional AI spectrum.

Data was also famous for getting things embarrassingly wrong, particularly when interacting with his human colleagues.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#234

Post by antirez »

b3kart wrote: post #57
antirez wrote: post #54

TLDR don't be an asshole and produce good stuff. But I have the feeling that this is not the right direction for the future. Distrust the process: only trust the results. Moreover this policy is strictly unenforceable because good AI use is indistinguishable from good manual coding. And sometimes even the reverse. I don't believe in coding policies where maintainers need to spot if AI is used or not. I believe in exp…

This doesn't work in the age of AI where producing crappy results is much cheaper than verifying them. While this is the case, metadata will be important to understand if you should even bother verifying the results.

The time needed for an AI patch written with the prompt "now make it as small as possible, clean, and human coded" is as big as reviewing the patch itself.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#235

Post by wnevets »

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…

> how little shame people apparently have

You can expand this sentiment to everyday life. The things some people are willing to say and do in public is a never ending supply of surprising.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#236

Post by direwolf20 »

Suzuran wrote: post #115
buggy6257 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your boss sounds hilarious naive to how the world works.

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 Gervais Principle framework calls this type of person a Clueless. They sit in middle management as a buffer between the Sociopaths who run the world, and the Losers who know the world sucks but would just like to get their paycheck and go home. I'm surprised to hear this actually play out — the Gervais Principle doesn't seem very empirical.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#237

Post by direwolf20 »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #229
tveita wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

It could be the same extension that replaces every occurrence of the cloud with my butt.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#238

Post by direwolf20 »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #104
pousada wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think in science fiction it’s one of the most common themes for the talking computer to be utterly horribly wrong, often resulting in complete annihilation of all life on earth. Unless I have been reading very different science fiction I think it’s definitely not that. I think it’s more the confidence and seeming plausibility of LLM answers

People are literally taking Black Mirror storylines and trying to manifest them. I think they did a `s/dys/u/` and don't know how to undo it...

They codysld start by trying to dysndo it.

I'm sorry. That was a terrible joke.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#239

Post by hintymad »

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 that those people have different incentives. They need to build a portfolio of open-source contributions, so shame is not of their concern. So, yeah, where you stand depends on where you sit.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#240

Post by direwolf20 »

zehaeva wrote: post #180
benldrmn wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny, I had a similar experience TAing “Intro to CS” (first semester C programming course). The student was certain he encountered a compiler bug (pushing back on my assumption there was something wrong with their code, since while compilers do have bugs, they are probably not in the code generation of a nested for loop). After spending a few minutes parsing their totally unindented code, the off-by-one error reveal…

Off topic, but I feel like this could be made into a Zen Koan from The Codeless Code[0]. You're almost there with it! [0] https://thecodelesscode.com/

Offer topic, but the Codeless Code isn't Zen Koans. It's formatted like Zen Koans, and it's entertaining and brings value to the world, but it isn't the same thing.
Post reply on HN