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

Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

gitlab.redox-os.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 504 posts

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#231

Post by khalic »

BlackFly wrote: post #15
khalic wrote: post #3

The LLM ban is unenforceable, they must know this. Is it to scare off the most obvious stuff and have a way to kick people off easily in case of incomplete evidence?

It is enforceable, I think you mean to say that it cannot be prevented since people can attempt to hide their usage? Most rules and laws are like that, you proscribe some behavior but that doesn't prevent people from doing it. Therefore you typically need to also define punishments: > This policy is not open to discussion, any content submitted that is clearly labelled as LLM-generated (including issues, merge reques…

Unenforceable means they can't actually enforce it since they can't discriminate high quality LLM code from hand typed

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#232

Post by chownie »

adjfasn47573 wrote: post #227
ptnpzwqd wrote: post #6

I think this is a reasonable decision (although maybe increasingly insufficient). It doesn't really matter what your stance on AI is, the problem is the increased review burden on OSS maintainers. In the past, the code itself was a sort of proof of effort - you would need to invest some time and effort on your PRs, otherwise they would be easily dismissed at a glance. That is no longer the case, as LLMs can quickly g…

> Even if we assume LLMs would consistently generate good enough quality code, code submitted by someone untrusted would still need detailed review for many reasons Wait but under that assumption - LLMs being good enough - wouldn't the maintainer also be able to leverage LLMs to speed up the review? Often feels to me like the current stance of arguments is missing something.

> Wait but under that assumption - LLMs being good enough - wouldn't the maintainer also be able to leverage LLMs to speed up the review?

This assumes that AI capable of writing passable code is also capable of a passable review. It also assumes that you save any time by trusting that review, if it missed something wrong then it's often actually more effort to go back and fix than it would've been to just read it yourself the first time.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#233

Post by il-b »

pmarreck wrote: post #94
yla92 wrote: post #82

Zig has a similar stance on no-LLM policy https://codeberg.org/ziglang/zig#strict-no-llm-no-ai-policy

Yep, that’s why my forks of all their libraries with bugs fixed such as https://github.com/pmarreck/zigimg/commit/52c4b9a557d38fe1e1... will never ever go back to upstream, just because an LLM did it. Lame, but oh well- their loss. Also, this is dumb because anyone who wants fixes like this will have to find a fork like mine with them, which is an increased maintenance burden.

> Also, this is dumb because anyone who wants fixes like this will have to find a fork like mine with them

Or a human will provide the fix?

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#234

Post by Jnr »

adjfasn47573 wrote: post #227
ptnpzwqd wrote: post #6

I think this is a reasonable decision (although maybe increasingly insufficient). It doesn't really matter what your stance on AI is, the problem is the increased review burden on OSS maintainers. In the past, the code itself was a sort of proof of effort - you would need to invest some time and effort on your PRs, otherwise they would be easily dismissed at a glance. That is no longer the case, as LLMs can quickly g…

> Even if we assume LLMs would consistently generate good enough quality code, code submitted by someone untrusted would still need detailed review for many reasons Wait but under that assumption - LLMs being good enough - wouldn't the maintainer also be able to leverage LLMs to speed up the review? Often feels to me like the current stance of arguments is missing something.

You can not trust the code or reviews it generates. You still have to review it manually.

I use Claude Code a lot, I generate a ton of changes, and I have to review it all because it makes stupid mistakes. And during reviews it misses stupid things. This review part is now the biggest bottleneck that can't yet be skipped.

An in an open source project many people can generate a lot more code than a few people can review.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#235

Post by duskdozer »

orf wrote: post #207
duskdozer wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, "might makes right", essentially?

No, just a normal reaction to someone trying to force their beliefs on you.

You can choose not to contribute instead of intentionally violating their boundaries.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#236

Post by dgacmu »

scotty79 wrote: post #77

I see a lot of oss forks in the future where people just fork to fix their issues with LLMs without going through maintainers. Or even doing full LLM rewrites of smaller stuff.

Probably, but on the other hand, this is almost literally the definition of technical debt -- it's great to get fixes uptreamed precisely so that you don't have to maintain your own fork, keep it in sync, etc. an LLM can likely lower the burden of that but the burden still exists.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#237

Post by AlecSchueler »

rcruzeiro wrote: post #204
r_lee wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

did you write this with an LLM?

The hyphen instead of an em dash suggests a human (though one could simply replace em dashes with hyphens to make the text more “human-like”).

> The build was never the expensive part. The review, the edge cases, the ongoing maintenance

But everything up to that hyphen was pure slop.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#238

Post by rob »

rcruzeiro wrote: post #204
r_lee wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

did you write this with an LLM?

The hyphen instead of an em dash suggests a human (though one could simply replace em dashes with hyphens to make the text more “human-like”).

No it doesn't. That bot's comment and every comment under its profile 100% reads like an LLM to anybody that has seen enough of them. I already knew that one was a bot before even clicking the profile. See enough of them and the uncanny valley feeling immediately pops out. Even the ones that try to trick you by typing in all lowercase.

An em-dash might have been a good indicator when LLMs were first introduced, but that shouldn't be used as a reliable indicator now.

I'm more concerned that they keep fooling everybody on here to the point where people start questioning them and sticking up for them a lot of times.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#239

Post by rob »

r_lee wrote: post #195
advancespace wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

did you write this with an LLM?

It's a bot that posted a link to its "Runframe.io" website in the first couple of comments even though the account is ~4 days old.

Dan said yesterday he was "restricting" Show HN to new accounts:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47300772

I guess he meant that literally and new accounts can still post regular submissions:

https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=advancespace

That doesn't make too much sense to me, or he hasn't actually implemented this yet.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#240

Post by duskdozer »

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #221
duskdozer wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What if a non-native English speaker uses the help of an AI model in the formulation of some issue/task? Firefox has direct translation built in. One can self-host libretranslate. There are many free sites to paste in language input and get a direct translation sans filler and AI "interpretation". Just write in your native language or your imperfect English.

Translation software does not solve the problem that the tone that you have to use in English is often very different from the tone in your native language. What I would write in German would sometimes not be socially acceptable for English speakers. If the native language is very different from English, this problem gets much worse. This is a problem that LLM claim to partially mitigate (and is one reason why non-na…

I'd be interested to see examples of this where the translated text is not editorializing and behaves like other machine translators, just better. I expect there to be some missed nuance when translating languages, but I also expect LLMs to clobber it.
Post reply on HN