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

251–260 of 504 posts

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

#251

Post by CoastalCoder »

hijnksforall956 wrote: post #224
lpcvoid wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because human errors are, well, human. And producing code that contains those errors is a human endeavor. It bases on years, decades of learning. Mistakes were made, experience was gained, skills were improved. Reasoning by humans is relatable. Generating slop using LLMs takes seconds, has no human element, no work goes into it. Mistakes made by an LLM are excused without sincerity, without real learning, without con…

[flagged]

Friendly suggestion: your post contains a mix of interesting points and ad hominim attacks.

People will be more likely to engage with your main assertion if you leave out the insults.

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

#252

Post by ZaoLahma »

advancespace wrote: post #158
konschubert wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bottlenecks today are: * understanding the problem * modelling a solution that is consistent with the existing modelling/architecture of the software and moves modelling and architecture in the right direction * verifying that the the implementation of the solution is not introducing accidental complexity These are the things LLMs can't do well yet. That's where contributions will be most appreciated. Producing c…

[flagged]

Some months back I would have agreed with you without any "but", but it really does help even if it only takes over "typing code".

Once you do understand the problem deep enough to know exactly what to ask for without ambiguity, the AI will produce the code that exactly solves your problem a heck of a lot quicker than you. And the time you don't spend on figuring out language syntax, you can instead spend on tweaking the code on a higher architecture level. Spend time where you, as a human, are better than the AI.

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

#253

Post by TiredOfLife »

lpcvoid wrote: post #103
pmarreck wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hugely unpopular opinion on HN, but I'd rather use code that is flawed while written by a human, versus code that has been generated by a LLM, even if it fixes bugs. I'd gladly take a bug report, sure, but then I'd fix the issues myself. I'd never allow LLM code to be merged.

[flagged]

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

#254

Post by orf »

duskdozer wrote: post #235
orf wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Their boundaries. If they don’t want to accept the code, cool. Nobody is forcing them to, and I respect that.

But if they can’t enforce their boundaries, because they can’t tell the difference between AI code and non-AI code without being told, then their boundaries they made up are unenforceable nonsense.

About as nonsense and enforceable as asking me to code upside down.

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

#255

Post by officeplant »

logicprog wrote: post #182
sillysaurusx wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose almost all work in the future is done via LLMs, just like almost all transportation is done today via cars instead of horses. Do you think your worldview is still a reasonable one under those conditions?

I say let people hold this stance. We, agentic coders, can easily enough fork their project and add whatever the features or refinements we wanted, and use that fork for ourselves, but also make it available for others in case other people want to use it for the extra features and polish as well. With AI, it's very easy to form a good architectural understanding of a large code base and figure out how to modify it in…

Well at least you, agentic coders, already understand they need to fork off.

Saves the rest of us from having to tell you.

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

#256

Post by hparadiz »

rswail wrote: post #218
hparadiz wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's (c) copyright of the operator. For one simple reason. Intention. Here's some code for example: https://i.imgur.com/dp0QHBp.png Both sides written by an LLM. Both sides written based on my explicit prompts explaining exactly how I want it to behave, then testing, retesting, and generally doing all the normal software eng due diligence necessary for basic QA. Sometimes the prompts are explicitly "change this varia…

I think you need to read the report from the US Copyright office that specifically says that it's *not* (c) copyright of the operator. It doesn't matter if the "change this variable name" instruction ends up with the same result as a human operator using a text editor. There is a big difference between "change this variable name" and "refactor this code base to extract a singleton".

You may as well be the MPAA right now throwing threats around sharing MP3s. We're past the point of caring and the laws will catch up with reality eventually. The US copyright office says things that get turned over in court all the time.

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

#257

Post by scotty79 »

dgacmu wrote: post #236
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.

Yeah, but what can you do if you need a thing done and now there's an option to have it done.

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

#258

Post by slibhb »

dakolli wrote: post #97
yla92 wrote: post #82

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

If you rely on llms, you're simply not going to make it. The person who showed their work on the math test is 9/10 times is doing better in life than the person that only knew how to use a calculator. Now how do we think things are going to turn out for the person that doesn't even think they need to learn how to use a calculator. Just like when people started losing their ability to navigate without a GPS/Maps app,…

> The person who showed their work on the math test is 9/10 times is doing better in life than the person that only knew how to use a calculator

Sure but once you learn long multiplication/division algorithms by hand there's not much point in using them. By high school everyone is using a calculator.

> Just like when people started losing their ability to navigate without a GPS/Maps app

Are you suggesting people shouldn't use Google Maps? Seems kind of nuts. Similar to calculators, the lesson here is that progress works by obviating the need to think about some thing. Paper maps and compasses work the same way, they render some older skill obsolete. The written word made memorization infinitely less valuable (and writing had its critics).

I don't think "LLMs making us dumber" is a real concern. Yes, people will lose some skills. Before calculators, adults were probably way better at doing arithmetic. But this isn't something worth prioritizing.

However, it is worth teaching people to code by hand, just like we still teach arithmetic and times tables. But ultimately, once we've learned these things, we're going to use tools that supercede them. There's nothig new or scary about this, and it will be a significant net win.

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

#259

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

Dangerous that all these projects keep going MIT. We wouldn't have an open source community if it weren't for protections against modification without sharing. Almost all software today would be proprietary, as it was before.

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

#260

Post by skydhash »

emperorxanu wrote: post #241
zozbot234 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, LLMs generate useless word salad and nonsense even when working on issues text, you absolutely have to reword the writing from scratch otherwise it's just an annoyance and a complete waste of time. Even a good prompt doesn't help this all that much since it's just how the tool works under the hood: it doesn't have a goal of saying anything specific in the clearest possible way and inwardly rewording it…

I feel like every person stating things of this nature are literally not able to communicate effectively (though this is not a barrier anymore, you can get a dog to vibe code games with the right workflow, which to me seems like quite an intellectual thing to be able to do. Despite that, you will make this argument when trying to use copilot to do something, the worst model in the entire industry. If an AI can replac…

It does generate word salad (and usefulness depends on the person reading it). If both the writer and the reader share a common context, there's a lot that can be left out (the extreme version is military signal). An SOS over the radio says the same thing as "I'm in a dangerous situation, please help me if you can" but the former is way more efficient. LLMs tend to prefer the latter.
Post reply on HN