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

AI has a deep understanding of how this code works

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 329 posts

Re: AI has a deep understanding of how this code works

#261

Post by kcexn »

heavyset_go wrote: post #243
joelreymont wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you be unwilling to merge AI code at all? Consider my other PR against the Zig compiler [1]... I was careful to make it small and properly document it but there's a strict anti-AI policy for Zig and they closed the PR. Why? Is it not small? Not carefully documented? Is there no value it int? I'm not complaining or arguing for justice. I'm genuinely interested in how people think in this instance. If the sau…

> Why would you be unwilling to merge AI code at all? Because AI code cannot be copyrighted. It is not anyone's IP. That matters when you're creating IP. edit: Assuming this is a real person I'm responding to, and this isn't just a marketing gimmick, having seen the trail you've left on the internet over the past few weeks, it strikes me of mania, possibly chatbot-induced. I don't know what I can say that could help,…

This is a position that seems to be as unenforceable as AI can't be trained on code whose copyright owners have not given consent.

The main reason for being unwilling to merge AI code is going to be that it sets a precedent that AI code is acceptable. Suddenly, maintainers need to be able to make judgement calls on a case-by-case basis of what constitutes an acceptable AI contribution, and AI is going to be able to generate far more slop than people will ever have the time to review and agree upon.

Re: AI has a deep understanding of how this code works

#262

Post by ahoka »

menaerus wrote: post #223
pjmlp wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? That is why some people are forbidden to contribute to projects if their eyes have read projects with incompatible licenses, in case people go to copyright court.

Yes what? Both oxcaml and ocaml have compatible LGPL licenses so I didn't get your argument. But even if that hadn't been the case, what exactly would be the problem? Are you saying that I cannot learn from a copyrighted book written by some respected and known author, and then apply that knowledge elsewhere because I would be risking to be sued for copyright infringement?

"Yes what? Both oxcaml and ocaml have compatible LGPL licenses so I didn't get your argument."

LGPL is a license for distribution, the copyright of the original authors is retained (unless signed away in a contribution agreement, usually to an organization).

"Are you saying that I cannot learn from a copyrighted book written by some respected and known author, and then apply that knowledge elsewhere because I would be risking to be sued for copyright infringement?"

This was not the case here, so not sure how that is related in any way?

Re: AI has a deep understanding of how this code works

#263

Post by xign »

joelreymont wrote: post #232
robertheadley wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say they were dismissive of AI, just that they are unwilling to merge code that they don't have the time or motivation to review. If you want AI code merged, make it small so it it's an easy review. That being said, I completely understand being unwilling to merge AI code at all.

Why would you be unwilling to merge AI code at all? Consider my other PR against the Zig compiler [1]... I was careful to make it small and properly document it but there's a strict anti-AI policy for Zig and they closed the PR. Why? Is it not small? Not carefully documented? Is there no value it int? I'm not complaining or arguing for justice. I'm genuinely interested in how people think in this instance. If the sau…

I can't even reproduce your supposed "issue" regarding the Zig compiler "bug". I have an Apple Silicon Mac and tried your reproducer and zig compiled and ran the program just fine.

Honestly, I really suggest reading up on what self-reflection means. I read through your various PRs, and the fact that you can't even answer why a random author name shows up in your PR means the code can't be trusted. It's not just about attribution (although that's important). It's that it's such a simple thing that you can't even reason through.

You may claim you have written loads of tests, but that means literally nothing. How do you know they are testing the important parts? Also you haven't demonstrated that it "works" other than in the simplest use cases.

Re: AI has a deep understanding of how this code works

#264

Post by biorach »

menaerus wrote: post #258
biorach wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wider point is that copyright headers are a very important detail and that a) the AI got it wrong b) you did not notice c) you have not taken on board the fact that it is important despite being told several times and have dismissed the issue as unimportant Which raises the question how many other important incorrect details are buried in the 13k lines of code that you are unaware of and unable to recognise the s…

Yes, please then find those for now imaginative issues and drill through them? Sorry, but I haven't seen anyone in that MR calling out for technical deficiencies so this is just crying out loud in a public for no concrete reasons. It's the same as if your colleague sitting next to you would not allow the MR to be merged for various political and not technical reasons - this is exactly what is happening here.

> Yes, please then find those for now imaginative issues and drill through them?

No, that is a massive amount of work which will only establish what we already know with a high degree of certainty due to the red flags already mentored - that this code is too flawed to begin with.

This is not political, this is looking out for warming signs in order to avoid wasting time. At this stage the burden of proof is on the submitter, not the reviewers

Re: AI has a deep understanding of how this code works

#265

Post by joelreymont »

xign wrote: post #263
joelreymont wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you be unwilling to merge AI code at all? Consider my other PR against the Zig compiler [1]... I was careful to make it small and properly document it but there's a strict anti-AI policy for Zig and they closed the PR. Why? Is it not small? Not carefully documented? Is there no value it int? I'm not complaining or arguing for justice. I'm genuinely interested in how people think in this instance. If the sau…

I can't even reproduce your supposed "issue" regarding the Zig compiler "bug". I have an Apple Silicon Mac and tried your reproducer and zig compiled and ran the program just fine. Honestly, I really suggest reading up on what self-reflection means. I read through your various PRs, and the fact that you can't even answer why a random author name shows up in your PR means the code can't be trusted. It's not just about…

Check the 2nd PR, the one in my repo and not the one that was rejected.

Re: AI has a deep understanding of how this code works

#266

Post by biorach »

menaerus wrote: post #257
biorach wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An incorrect copyright header is a major red flag for non technical reasons. If you think it is an irrelevant minor matter then you do not undesirable several very important social and legal aspects of the issue.

Social maybe yes what legal aspects? Everybody keeps repeating that but there is no copyright infringement. Maybe you can point me to one? I understand that people are uncomfortable with this, I am likely too, but objectively looking there's technically nothing wrong or different to what humans already do.

The point is that it ended up in the PR in the first place. The submitted seemed unaware of its presence and only looked into it after it was pointed out. This is sloppy and is a major red flag.

Re: AI has a deep understanding of how this code works

#267

Post by PunchyHamster »

kcexn wrote: post #261
heavyset_go wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would you be unwilling to merge AI code at all? Because AI code cannot be copyrighted. It is not anyone's IP. That matters when you're creating IP. edit: Assuming this is a real person I'm responding to, and this isn't just a marketing gimmick, having seen the trail you've left on the internet over the past few weeks, it strikes me of mania, possibly chatbot-induced. I don't know what I can say that could help,…

This is a position that seems to be as unenforceable as AI can't be trained on code whose copyright owners have not given consent. The main reason for being unwilling to merge AI code is going to be that it sets a precedent that AI code is acceptable. Suddenly, maintainers need to be able to make judgement calls on a case-by-case basis of what constitutes an acceptable AI contribution, and AI is going to be able to g…

> This is a position that seems to be as unenforceable as AI can't be trained on code whose copyright owners have not given consent.

Stares at facebook stealing terabytes of copyrighted content to train their models

Also, even if code is trained only on FLOSS approved licenses, GPL based ones have some caveats that would disqualify many projects with including code

Re: AI has a deep understanding of how this code works

#268

Post by PunchyHamster »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #173
bfkwlfkjf wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, anyone can get away with it. What are they going to do, call the police because you called them a moron?

Consider the facts: (1) most open-source maintainers have a real job (2) an unwritten rule of corporate culture is "(appear) nice" (see all of the "corporate speak" memes about how "per my last email" means "fuck off") (3) these developers may eventually need a job at another company (4) their "moron" comment is going to live forever on the internet...

If you're famous enough for that to filter to the whoever is handling your resume, it anything it will be positive

Re: AI has a deep understanding of how this code works

#269

Post by PunchyHamster »

jodrellblank wrote: post #153
torben-friis wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They claim to have read the code, tested the code, they know that other people want the functionality; is wanting to share working code a "broken brain"? There is clearly a deviation between the amount of oversight the author thinks they provided and the actual level of oversight. This is clear by the fact that they couldn’t even explain the misattribution. They also mention that this is not their area of expertise.…

If a manager says they provided oversight of their developer employees, and the code was not as good as the manager thought, would you say "the manager has had their brain broken by the existence of employees"?

...Well, if you want to make an argument for calling them "useless and incompetent", I'd say you have a great point, good manager would at least throw it to QA and/or recruit someone better after failure

Re: AI has a deep understanding of how this code works

#270

Post by PunchyHamster »

menaerus wrote: post #236
kqr wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are claiming humans copy-and-paste copyright headers without copying the corresponding code. To prove you're correct, you only need to show one (or a few) examples of it happening. To prove you incorrect, someone would have to go through all code in existence to show the absence of the phenomenon. Hence the burden of proof is on you.

No code besides the header was copied so I am asking what is so problematic about it?

that was already explained before
Post reply on HN