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

Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 427 posts

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#281

Post by windward »

compton93 wrote: post #31
JonChesterfield wrote: post #22

Interesting. Harder line than the LLVM one found at https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#ai-generated-cont... I'm very old man shouting at clouds about this stuff. I don't want to review code the author doesn't understand and I don't want to merge code neither of us understand.

I don't want to review code the author doesn't understand This really bothers me. I've had people ask me to do some task except they get AI to provide instructions on how to do the task and send me the instructions, rather than saying "Hey can you please do X". It's insulting.

It's the modern equivalent of sending a LMGTFY link, except the insult is from them being purely credulous and sincere

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#282

Post by Dylan16807 »

ben_w wrote: post #277
alganet wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a complete proof that P=NP but it doesn't make sense to reveal to the world that now I'm god. It would crush their little hearts.

P = NP is less "crush their little hearts", more "may cause widespread heart attacks across every industry due to cryptography failing, depending on if the polynomial exponent is small enough".

A very very big if.

Also a sufficiently good exponential solver would do the same thing.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#283

Post by guappa »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #202
amake wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not obvious because people producing high quality stuff have no incentive at all to mark their changes as AI-generated I feel like we'd be hearing from business that crushed their competition by delivering faster or with fewer people. Where are those businesses? > But there are also local tools generated This is really not the same thing as the original claim ("Software projects that somehow are 100% human dev…

> I feel like we'd be hearing from business that crushed their competition by delivering faster or with fewer people. Where are those businesses? As if tech part was the major part of getting the product to market. Those businesses are probably everywhere. They just aren't open about admitting they're using AI to speed up their marketing/product design/programming/project management/graphics design, because a) it's n…

> They just aren't open about admitting they're using AI to speed up their marketing/product design/programming/project management/graphics design

Sure… they'd hate to get money thrown at them from investors.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#284

Post by Dylan16807 »

viraptor wrote: post #269
a57721 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and before you discount it as too trivial, somehow none of the other ones did what I wanted No offense, it's really great that you are able to make apps that do exactly what you want, but your examples are not very good to show that "software projects that somehow are 100% human developed will not be competitive with AI assisted or written projects" (as someone else suggested above). Complex real world software is…

Cut it out with patronising, I work with complex software, which is why I specifically mentioned the only example I published was simple. > but your examples are not very good to show that "software projects that somehow are 100% human developed will not be competitive with AI assisted or written projects" Here's the thing though - it's already the case, because I wouldn't create those tools but hand otherwise. I jus…

I don't think they're being patronizing, it's that "simple personal app that was barely worth making" is nice to have but not at all what they want evidence of.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#285

Post by japhyr »

halostatue wrote: post #48
JonChesterfield wrote: post #22

Interesting. Harder line than the LLVM one found at https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#ai-generated-cont... I'm very old man shouting at clouds about this stuff. I don't want to review code the author doesn't understand and I don't want to merge code neither of us understand.

I have just started adding DCO to _all_ of the open source code that I maintain and will be adding text like this on `CONTRIBUTING.md`: --- LLM-Generated Contribution Policy Color is a library full of complex math and subtle decisions (some of them possibly even wrong). It is extremely important that any issues or pull requests be well understood by the submitter and that, especially for pull requests, the developer…

> any issues or pull requests be well understood by the submitter

I really like this phrasing, particularly in regards to PRs. I think I'll find a way to incorporate this into my projects. Even for smaller, non-critical projects, it's such a distraction to deal with people trying to make "contributions" that they don't clearly understand.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#286

Post by mailund »

OptionOfT wrote: post #109
alluro2 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend experienced a similar thing at work - he gave a well-informed assessment of why something is difficult to implement and it would take a couple of weeks, based on the knowledge of the system and experience with it - only for the manager to reply within 5 min with a screenshot of an (even surprisingly) idiotic ChatGPT reply, and a message along the lines of "here's how you can do it, I guess by the end of the…

Same here. You throw a question in a channel. Someone responds in 1 minute with a code example that either you had laying around, or would take > 5 minutes to write. The code example was AI generated. I couldn't find a single line of code anywhere in any codebase. 0 examples on GitHub. And of course it didn't work. But, it sent me on a wild goose because I trusted this person to give me a valuable insight. It pisses…

I experienced mentioning an issue I was stuck on during standup one day, then some guy on my team DMs me a screenshot of chatGPT with text about how to solve the issue. When I explained to him why the solution he had sent me didn't make sense and wouldn't solve the issue, he sent me back the reply the LLM would give by pasting in my reply, at which point I stopped responding.

I'm just really confused what people who send LLM content to other people think they are achieving? Like if I wanted an LLM response, I would just prompt the LLM myself, instead of doing it indirectly though another person who copy/pastes back and forth.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#287

Post by rvnx »

amake wrote: post #221
rvnx wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All around you, just that it doesn’t make sense for developers to reveal that a lot of their work is now about chunking and refining the specifications written by the product owner. Admitting such is like admitting you are overpaid for your job, and that a 20 USD AI-agent can do better and faster than you for 75% of the work. Is it easy to admit that you have learnt skills for 10+ years that are progressively already…

> All around you, just that it doesn’t make sense for developers to reveal that OK, but I asked for evidence and people just keep not providing any. "God is all around you; he just works in mysterious ways" OK, good luck with that.

Billions of people believe in god(s). In fact, 75 to 85% of the world population, btw.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#288

Post by Dylan16807 »

ringeryless wrote: post #169
linsomniac wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude, have you ever looked at code you wrote 6 months ago and gone "What was the developer thinking?" ;-)

yes, constantly. I also don't remember much contextual domain info of a given section of code about 2 weeks into delving into some other part of the same app. So-called AI makes this worse. Let me remind you of gyms, now that humans have been saved of much manual activity...

> So-called AI makes this worse.

I think that needs actual testing. At what time distances is there an effect, and how big is it? Even if there is an effect, it could be small enough that a mild productivity boost from AI is more important.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#289

Post by viraptor »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #284
viraptor wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cut it out with patronising, I work with complex software, which is why I specifically mentioned the only example I published was simple. > but your examples are not very good to show that "software projects that somehow are 100% human developed will not be competitive with AI assisted or written projects" Here's the thing though - it's already the case, because I wouldn't create those tools but hand otherwise. I jus…

I don't think they're being patronizing, it's that "simple personal app that was barely worth making" is nice to have but not at all what they want evidence of.

Whether it was worth making is for me to judge since it is a personal app. It improves my life and work, so yes, it was very much worth it.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#290

Post by amake »

rvnx wrote: post #287
amake wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All around you, just that it doesn’t make sense for developers to reveal that OK, but I asked for evidence and people just keep not providing any. "God is all around you; he just works in mysterious ways" OK, good luck with that.

Billions of people believe in god(s). In fact, 75 to 85% of the world population, btw.

And?
Post reply on HN