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

241–250 of 293 posts

Re: AI Usage Policy

#241

Post by direwolf20 »

toyg wrote: post #71
Ronsenshi wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's good to regularly see such policies and discussions around them to remind me how staggeringly shameless some people could be and how many of such people out there. Interacting mostly with my peers, friends, acquaintances I tend to forget that they don't represent average population and after some time I start to assume all people are reasonable and act in good faith.

Yep, this. You can just look at the state of FOSS licensing across GitHub to see it in action: licenses are routinely stripped or changed to remove the original developers, even on trivial items, even on forked projects where the action is easily visible, even on licenses that allow for literally everything else . State "You can do everything except this" and loads of people will still actively do it, because they ha…

You don't have to obey the copyright of anyone who's not willing to sue you for copyright infringement. Business moguls know this.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#242

Post by krferriter »

derrida wrote: post #130
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.

Shame is a good thing it shows one has a conscience and positive self regard. Just like pain is a good thing, it tells you and signals to remove your hand from the stove.

I've been saying for a couple years now that we need a healthy revitalization of shame in society. Sure in the past (and present) shaming people has been done for bad reasons but shame itself serves an important social function and I feel like there has been a collapse in its effectiveness, which has been very bad for society. People should be made to feel ashamed for certain things they do. It should impact them deeply and it should linger with them and be reinforced by others around them until they successfully make behavior changes. For example I see people lie pretty shamelessly and they suffer no lasting consequences for it. They should be stained with shame until they alter their behavior. People should not let them move past it and move on to the next lie.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#243

Post by yellowapple »

This is the most well-informed and reasonable AI policy I've seen so far. Neither kneejerk-hostile nor laissez faire; just a mature understanding of the limitations of LLMs, and an insistence on transparency and accountability when using them.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#244

Post by saratogacx »

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…

For this logic I like to point out that every AI service has text that says, essentially "AI can be wrong, double check your answers". If you had the same disclaimer on your food "This food's quality is not assured" would you feel comfortable buying it or would you take pause until you've built up trust with the seller and manufacturer.

There's so much CYA because there is an A that needs C'ing

Re: AI Usage Policy

#245

Post by pousada »

ryandrake wrote: post #228
pousada wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

I agree and I think it’s a backlash to the 2010’s where many felt there was too much shame/shaming going on in most online spaces.

Fwiw I haven’t noticed either phenomenon much irl but that might just be my bubble.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#246

Post by Wojtkie »

ionwake wrote: post #58
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…

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.

It doesn't help that it seems like society has been trending to reward individuals with a lack of shame. Fortune favors the bold, that is.

Think of a lot of the inflammatory content on social media, how people have made whole careers and fortunes over outrage, and they have no shame over it.

It really does begin to look like having a good sense of shame isn't rewarded in the same way.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#247

Post by verdverm »

Retr0id wrote: post #202
Ntrails wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

that's why we have CI like GHA that runs the tests on PRs / commits

Re: AI Usage Policy

#248

Post by verdverm »

maxnevermind wrote: post #232
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.

> people who might use AI tend to cut corners

People do this all the time too, and is one source for the phrase "tech debt"

It's also a biased statement. I use Ai and I cut fewer corners now because the Ai can spam out that boring stuff for me

Re: AI Usage Policy

#249

Post by verdverm »

radarsat1 wrote: post #8
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).

I've thought about saving my prompts along with project development and even done it by hand a few times, but eventually I realized I don't really get much value from doing so. Are there good reasons to do it?

Using them for evals at a future date.

I save all of mine, including their environment, and plan to use them for iterating on my various system prompts and tool instructions.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#250

Post by verdverm »

Ronsenshi wrote: post #37
fragmede wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not for you. It's so others can see how you arrived to the code that was generated. They can learn better prompting for themselves from it, and also how you think. They can see which cases got considered, or not. All sorts of good stuff that would be helpful for reviewing giant PRs.

Sounds depressing. First you deal with massive PRs and now also these agent prompts. Soon enough there won't be any coding at all, it seems. Just doomscrolling through massive prompt files and diffs in hopes of understanding what is going on.

I suspect this future will not play out. Mitchell is definitely leaning to one side on this debate.

To me, quality code is quality code no matter how it was arrived at. That should be the end of it

Post reply on HN