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

271–280 of 293 posts

Re: AI Usage Policy

#271

Post by __loam »

B1FIDO wrote: post #269
__loam wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A shrug and a sigh in so many words.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#272

Post by NiloCK »

rikschennink wrote: post #191
NiloCK wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that code is distinct or "less than" art. It's an authority and boundaries question. I've written a fair amount of open source code. On anything like a per-capita basis, I'm way above median in terms of what I've contributed (without consent) to the training of these tools. I'm also specifically "in the crosshairs" in terms of work loss from automation of software development. I don't find it hard to convinc…

Alright, if I understand correctly, what you're saying is they make this distinction because they operate in the "text and code" space but not in the media space. I've written _a lot_ of open source MIT licensed code, and I'm on the fence about that being part of the training data. I've published it as much for other people to use for learning purposes as I did for fun. I also build and sell closed source commercial…

I agree it does all have the same problem, but on balance: it's much easier to rationalize my own use of genAI to augment my programming skillset and (maybe) stay employable, than it is to rationalize using genAI to do commercial artwork.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#273

Post by arjunbajaj »

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…

It's a signal vs noise filter, because today, AI can make more mistakes. Your operating system or IDE cannot lead you to make a similar level or amount of mistakes while writing code.

It is of course your responsibility, but the maintainer may also want to change their review approach when dealing with AI generated code. And currently, as the AI Usage Policy also states, because of bad actors sending pull requests without reviewing or taking the responsibility themselves, this acts as a filter to separate your PR which you have taken the responsibility for.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#274

Post by BoorishBears »

__loam wrote: post #271
B1FIDO wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A shrug and a sigh in so many words.

Funny, reading your comment I had the idle thought: I mostly really see callousness towards artists coming from people retaliating after being belittled by artists for using AI

And here's your response to what felt like a pretty good faith response that deserved at most an equally earnest answer, and at worst no response.

Instead they got worse than no response lol.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#275

Post by andrekandre »

__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.

   > All while being completely ignorant to the medium or the process.
also ignorant that the art they generated was made possible by those people who "wasted their time"...

Re: AI Usage Policy

#276

Post by rf15 »

njhnjhnjh wrote: post #182
alansaber wrote: post #11

"Pull requests created by AI must have been fully verified with human use." should always be a bare minimum requirement.

AI is so smart these days that I typically just ask Claude to verify the code for me. This sort of request may have made sense in the old days but as the quality of generated code rapidly increases, so does the necessity of human intervention decrease.

You still live under the impression that they are able to reason and verify it. Verification is done by doing it in The Real, not your or some llm's imagination (which is all their output, at best)

Re: AI Usage Policy

#277

Post by TeMPOraL »

dematz wrote: post #172
NoGravitas wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a weird little guy.

A hungry ghost trapped in a jar ( https://bsky.app/profile/hikikomorphism.bsky.social/post/3lw... )

Similar analogy, yes.

FWIW, I prefer my "little people on a chip" because this is a deliberate riff on SoC, aka. System on a Chip, aka. an actual component you put when designing computer systems. The implication being, when you design information processing systems, the box with "LLM" on it should go where you'd consider putting a box with "Person" on it, not where you'd put "Database" or any other software/hardware box.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#278

Post by TeMPOraL »

slfreference wrote: post #153
TeMPOraL wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds a bit like the "Asking vs. Guessing culture" discussion on the front page yesterday. With the "Guesser" being GP who's front-loading extra investigation, debugging and maintenance work so the project maintainers don't have to do it, and with the "Asker" being the client from your example, pasting the submission to ChatGPT and forwarding its response.

>> In Guess Culture, you avoid putting a request into words unless you're pretty sure the answer will be yes. Guess Culture depends on a tight net of shared expectations. A key skill is putting out delicate feelers. If you do this with enough subtlety, you won't even have to make the request directly; you'll get an offer. Even then, the offer may be genuine or pro forma; it takes yet more skill and delicacy to discer…

Or octocat arms in this context?

Still, I meant that in the other direction: not request, but a gift/favor. "Guess culture" would be going out of your way to make the gift valuable for the receiver - matching what they need, and not generating extra burden. "Ask culture" would be like doing whatever's easiest that matches the explicit requirements, and throwing it over the fence.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#279

Post by TeMPOraL »

miki123211 wrote: post #167
TeMPOraL wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> [1] Cybersecurity is also an exception here. "men with guns" only work for cases where the criminal must be in the jurisdiction of the crime for the crime to have occurred. If you rob a bank in London, you must be in London, and the British police can catch you. If you rob a bank somebody else, the British police doesn't care. If you hack a bank in London though, you may very well be in North Korea.

That's a fair point, and I suppose it is a major reason cybersecurity looks the way it does. The Internet as it is ignores the jurisdictional borders. But I still think cybersec is going overboard with controls, constraining use cases where international cybercrime is not a major factor in the threat model.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#280

Post by TeMPOraL »

B1FIDO wrote: post #269
__loam wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

FWIW, even in physical medium, artists have huge competition with "factory art", i.e. a lot of low-paid laborers creating paintings and drawings for cheap. Quantity, not quality, is the name of the game here - and this is the art that adorns all the offices and hallways around the world.

It's basically like GenAI, but running on protein substrate instead of silicon one.

And even in the digital realm, artists already spent the last decade+ competing with equivalent "factory art", too. Advertising stands on art, and most of that isn't commissioned, it's rented or bought for cheap from stock art providers, and a lot of supply there comes from people and organizations who specialize in producing art for them. The OG slop art, before AI.

EDIT: there's some irony here, in that people like to talk about how GenAI might (or might already be) start putting artists out of work. But I haven't seen anyone mention that the AI has already put slop creators out of work.

Post reply on HN