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

261–270 of 504 posts

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

#261

Post by duskdozer »

orf wrote: post #254
duskdozer wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So we're back to might makes right then: "you can't stop me, so I'll do whatever I want to you."

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

#262

Post by dgacmu »

scotty79 wrote: post #257
dgacmu wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't disagree.

I assume that most of these purely llm generated unwanted contributions will just end up in dead end forks, because my impression is that a lot of them are just being generated as GitHub activity fodder. But the stuff that really solves a problem for a person - eh, good. Problem solved is problem solved. (Unless it creates new problems)

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

#263

Post by foresterre »

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]

That's a rather unkind comment.

For the parent there's immaterial value knowing that is written by a human. From what I read in your comment, you see code more as a means to an end. I think I understand where the parent is coming from. Writing code myself, and accomplishing what I set out to build sometimes feels like a form of art, and knowing that I build it, gives me a sense of accomplishment. And gives me energy. Writing code solely as a means to an end, or letting it be generated by some model, doesn't give that same energy.

This thinking has nothing to do with not caring about being a good teammate or the business. I've no idea why you put that on the same pile.

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

#264

Post by orf »

duskdozer wrote: post #261
orf wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So we're back to might makes right then: "you can't stop me, so I'll do whatever I want to you."

What a reductive argument. Is this your first day on planet earth? If so, here’s what you need to know:

- people can just say things

- when people say things, you don’t have to listen to them

- not listening to them doesn’t make you superior or more powerful than them

We can practice: I’d like you to always comment in uppercase letters from now on please. It’s my policy.

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

#265

Post by connicpu »

chownie wrote: post #232
adjfasn47573 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 you…

A couple weeks ago someone on my team tried using the experimental "vibe-lint" that someone else had added to our CI system and the results were hilariously bad. It left 10 plausible sounding review comments, but was anywhere from subtly to hilariously wrong about what's going on in 9/10 of them. If a human were leaving comments of that quality consistently they certainly wouldn't receive maintainer privileges here until they improved _significantly_.

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

#266

Post by hijnksforall956 »

CoastalCoder wrote: post #251
hijnksforall956 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

Is that like when "respected poster" jascuqesm implied I'm an asshole?

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

#267

Post by baq »

short_sells_poo wrote: post #242
baq wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re talking to someone’s clanker

I find the fact that people can't even be bothered to put their own thoughts into text and communicate via an LLM to be the most grotesque and dystopian aspect of this new AI era. It looks like we are going to have large numbers of people whose entire personality is projected via an AI rather than their own mind. Surely this will have an (likely deleterious) effect on people's emotional and social intelligence, no? P…

These aren't even their thoughts, it's just a bot let loose.

I remember the first time I suspected someone using an LLM to answer on HN shortly after chatgpt's first release. In a few short years the tables turned and it's increasingly more difficult to read actual people's thoughts (and this has been predicted, and the predictions for the next few years are far worse).

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

#268

Post by sbcorvus »

I understand the knee-jerk reaction to restrict LLM's, but that feels like a failing prospect. They're going to be doing an incredible amount of heavy lifting on code generation, so why would you intentionally cut out what will likely be 90% or more of potential contributions? Wouldn't it be better to come up with a system that tags the type of contributor, ie. human vs. AI? What about building an Agentic architecture that reduces your review burden? Just a thought.

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

#269

Post by conradludgate »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #214
logicprog wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So does that mean they contradicted their own no LLM policy?

Dunno but a commenter already noted that some begins to say: "No LLM generated PR, but we'll accept your prompt" and another person answered he saw that too. It makes lots of sense to me.

I've never had a one-shot prompt ever work. It's always an interactive session to eventually get to the working solution.

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

#270

Post by sanderjd »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #170
jacquesm wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My rules of thumb is much shorter: don't. The open source world has already been ripped off by AI the last thing they need is for AI to pollute the pedigree of the codebase.

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?

As someone who enjoys working with AI tools, I honestly think the best approach here might be bifurcation.

Start new projects using LLM tools, or maybe fork projects where that is acceptable. Don't force the volunteer maintainers of existing projects with existing workflows and cultures to review AI generated code. Create your own projects with workflows and cultures that are supportive of this, from the ground up.

I'm not suggesting this will come without downside, but it seems better to me than expecting maintainers to take on a new burden that they really didn't sign up for.

Post reply on HN