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

261–270 of 293 posts

Re: AI Usage Policy

#261

Post by SpecialistK »

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…

Funny enough, reading this makes me feel a little more confident and less... shame.

I've been deep-diving into AI code generation for more niche platforms, to see if it can either fill the coding gap in my skillset, or help me learn more code. And without writing my whole blog post(s) here, it's been fairly mediocre but improving over time.

But for the life of me I would never submit PRs of this code. Not if I can't explain every line and why it's there. And in preparation of publishing anything to my own repos I have a readme which explicitly states how the code was generated and requesting not to bother any upstream or community members with issues from it. It's just (uncommon) courtesy, no?

Re: AI Usage Policy

#262

Post by cess11 »

the_af wrote: post #100
cess11 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I get what you're saying but I think it's wrong (I also think it's wrong when people say "well, people used to complain about calculators..."). An LLM chatbot is not like querying a database. Postgres doesn't have a human-like interface. Querying SQL is highly technical, when you get nonsensical results out of it (which is most often than not) you immediately suspect the JOIN you wrote or whatever. There's no "confid…

No, it does not. It's like saying 'I talk to angels' because you hear voices in the humming from the ventilation.

It's precisely like a database. You might think the query interface is special, but that's all it is and if you let it fool you, fine, go ahead, keep it public that you do.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#264

Post by ottah »

arjunbajaj wrote: post #9

I can see this becoming a pretty generally accepted AI usage policy. Very balanced. Covers most of the points I'm sure many of us have experienced here while developing with AI. Most importantly, AI generated code does not substitute human thinking, testing, and clean up/rewrite. On that last point, whenever I've gotten Codex to generate a substantial feature, usually I've had to rewrite a lot of the code to make it…

Everything except the first provision is reasonable. IMO it's none of your damn business how I wrote the code, only that I understand it, and am responsible for it.

It's one of those provisions that seem reasonable, but really have no justification. It's an attempt to allow something, while extracting a cost. If I am responsible for my code, and am considered the author in the PR, than you as the recipient don't have a greater interest to know than my own personal preference not to disclose. There's never been any other requirement to disclose anything of this nature before. We don't require engineers to attest to the operating system or the licensing of the tools they use, so materially outside your own purant interests, how does it matter?

Re: AI Usage Policy

#265

Post by oblio »

ottah wrote: post #264
arjunbajaj wrote: post #9

I can see this becoming a pretty generally accepted AI usage policy. Very balanced. Covers most of the points I'm sure many of us have experienced here while developing with AI. Most importantly, AI generated code does not substitute human thinking, testing, and clean up/rewrite. On that last point, whenever I've gotten Codex to generate a substantial feature, usually I've had to rewrite a lot of the code to make it…

Everything except the first provision is reasonable. IMO it's none of your damn business how I wrote the code, only that I understand it, and am responsible for it. It's one of those provisions that seem reasonable, but really have no justification. It's an attempt to allow something, while extracting a cost. If I am responsible for my code, and am considered the author in the PR, than you as the recipient don't have…

Maintenance, for one. I imagine contributions that are 100% AI generated are more likely to have a higher maintenance burden and lower follow-up participation from the author in case fixes are needed.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#266

Post by [deleted] »

Lucasoato wrote: post #38

> Bad AI drivers will be banned and ridiculed in public. You've been warned. We love to help junior developers learn and grow, but if you're interested in that then don't use AI, and we'll help you. I'm sorry that bad AI drivers have ruined this for you. Finally an AI policy I can agree with :) jokes aside, it might sound a bit too agressive but it's also true that some people have really no shame into overloading yo…

[deleted]

Re: AI Usage Policy

#267

Post by simonw »

radarsat1 wrote: post #251
simonw wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why I want the transcript that shows the prompts AND the responses. The prompts alone have little value. The overall conversation shows me exactly what I did, what the agent did and the end result.

> shows me exactly what I did I get that, but I guess what I'm asking is, why does it matter what you did? The result is working, documented source code, which seems to me to be the important part. What value does keeping the prompt have? I'm not trying to needle, I just don't see it.

It's like issues in that it helps me record why I had the agent solve problems in a particular way.

It's also great for improving my prompting skills over time - I can go back and see what worked.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#268

Post by IgorPartola »

cess11 wrote: post #263
IgorPartola wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To quote Luke Skywalker: Amazing. Every word of what you just said is wrong.

No, it is not. It's a funny way of compressing and querying data, nothing else.

It is probabilistic unlike a database which is not. It is also a lossy way to compress data. We could go on about the differences but those two things make it not a database.

Edit: unless we are talking about MongoDB. It will only keep your data if you are lucky and might lose it. :)

Re: AI Usage Policy

#269

Post by B1FIDO »

__loam wrote: post #207
nlh wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so completely spot on. It’s happening in other fields too, particularly non-coding (but still otherwise specialized or technical) areas. AI is extremely empowering but what’s happening is that people are now showing up in all corners of the world armed with their phone at the end of their outstretched arm saying “Well ChatGPT says…” and getting very upset when told that, no, many apologies, but ChatGPT is wro…

It's why artists despise the AI art users. In that field it isn't simply them trying to contribute but instead insisting that you wasted your time learning to create art and if you're a professional you deserve to starve. All while being completely ignorant to the medium or the process.

You know...

Many artists through the ages have learned to work in various mediums, like sculpture of materials, oil painting, watercolors, fresco or whatever. There are myriad ways to express your visual art using physical materials.

Likewise, a girlfriend of mine was a college-educated artist, and she had some great output in all sorts of media, and had a great grasp of paints, and paper and canvas and what-have-you.

But she was also an Amiga aficionado, and then worked on the PCs I had, and ultimately the item she wanted most in life was a Wacom Tablet. This tablet was a force-multiplier for her art, and allowed her some real creative freedom to work in digital mediums and create art with ease that was unheard-of for messy oil paintings or whatever on canvas in your garage (we actually lived in a converted garage anyway.)

So, digital art was her saving grace, but also a significant leveler of playing fields. What would distinguish her original creativity from A.I.-generated stuff later on? Really not much. You could still make an oil or watercolor painting that is obviously hand-made. Forgeries of great artists have been perpetrated, but most of us can't explain, e.g. the Shroud of Turin anyway.

So generative A.I. is competing in these digital mediums, and perhaps 3D-printing is competing in the realm of physical objects, but it's unfortunate for artists that their choices have narrowed so far, that they are practically required to work in digital media exclusively, and master those apps, and therefore, they compete with gen A.I. in the virtual realm. That's just how it's gonna be, until folks go back to sculpting marble and painting soup cans.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#270

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

direwolf20 wrote: post #237
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

That’s the one I trying to think of, I could remember the ‘butt’ part.
Post reply on HN