Live data from Hacker News

AI Usage Policy

github.com

31–40 of 293 posts

Re: AI Usage Policy

#31
A well crafted policy that, I think, will be adopted by many OSS.

You'd need that kind of sharp rules to compete against unhinged (or drunken) AI drivers and that's unfortunate. But at the same time, letting people DoS maintainers' time at essential no cost is not an option either.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#32

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…

when it comes to enabling opportunities i dont think it becomes a matter of shame for them anymore. A lot of people (especially in regions where living is tough and competition is fierce) will do anything by hook or crook to get ahead in competition. And if github contributions is a metric for getting hired or getting noticed then you are going to see it become spammed.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#33

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…

Keep in mind that many people also contribute to big open source projects just because they believe it will look good ok their CV/GitHub and help them get a job. They don't care about helping anyone, they just want to write "contributed to Ghostty" in their application.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#34

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…

It's good to regularly see such policies and discussions around them to remind me how staggeringly shameless some people could be and how many of such people out there. Interacting mostly with my peers, friends, acquaintances I tend to forget that they don't represent average population and after some time I start to assume all people are reasonable and act in good faith.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you are getting downvoted, given that the original site is such a jarringly user-hostile mess.

Without using a random 3rd party, and without the "jarring user-hostile mess": https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/refs/h...

This option is pretty unreadable on mobile though

Re: AI Usage Policy

#36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without using a random 3rd party, and without the "jarring user-hostile mess": https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/refs/h...

This option is pretty unreadable on mobile though

Is it? Just tried it in Safari, Firefox and Chrome on a iPhone 12 Mini and I can read all the text? Obviously it isn't formatted, as it's raw markdown, just like what parent's recommended 3rd party platform does, but nothing is cut off or missing for me.

Actually, trying to load that previous platform on my phone makes it worse for readability, seems there is ~10% less width and not as efficient use of vertical space. Together with both being unformatted markdown, I think the raw GitHub URL seems to render better on mobile, at least small ones like my mini.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've thought about saving my prompts along with project development and even done it by hand a few times, but eventually I realized I don't really get much value from doing so. Are there good reasons to do it?

It's not for you. It's so others can see how you arrived to the code that was generated. They can learn better prompting for themselves from it, and also how you think. They can see which cases got considered, or not. All sorts of good stuff that would be helpful for reviewing giant PRs.

Sounds depressing. First you deal with massive PRs and now also these agent prompts. Soon enough there won't be any coding at all, it seems. Just doomscrolling through massive prompt files and diffs in hopes of understanding what is going on.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#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 you with AI generated shit. You need to protect your attention as much as you can, it's becoming the new currency.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#39
post #27

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…

I agree with you on the policy being balanced. However: > AI generated code does not substitute human thinking, testing, and clean up/rewrite. Isn't that the end goal of these tools and companies producing them? According to the marketing[1], the tools are already "smarter than people in many ways". If that is the case, what are these "ways", and why should we trust a human to do a better job at them? If these "ways"…

Intern generated code does not substitute for tech lead thinking, testing, and clean up/rewrite.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#40
> No AI-generated media is allowed (art, images, videos, audio, etc.). Text and code are the only acceptable AI-generated content, per the other rules in this policy.

I find this distinction between media and text/code so interesting. To me it sounds like they think "text and code" are free from the controversy surrounding AI-generated media.

But judging from how AI companies grabbed all the art, images, videos, and audio they could get their hands on to train their LLMs it's naive to think that they didn't do the same with text and code.

Post reply on HN