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

Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 308 posts

Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

#31

Post by ronsor »

sieep wrote: post #15
lpcvoid wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All LLM-output is slop. There's no good LLM output. It's stolen code, stolen literature, stolen media condensed into the greatest heist of the 21. century. Perfect capitalism - big LLM companies don't need to pay royalties to humans, while selling access to a service which generates monthly revenue.

Well put. Im gonna start parroting this talking point more from now on.

And I thought being a stochastic parrot was limited to LLMs, but apparently they learned it from somewhere...

Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

#32

Post by AlexandrB »

mrbungie wrote: post #13
SamuelAdams wrote: post #4

My question on AI generated contributions and content in general: on a long enough timeline, with ever improving advancements in AI, how can people reliably tell the difference between human and AI generated efforts? Sure now it is easy, but in 3-10 years AI will get significantly better. It is a lot like the audio quality of an MP3 recording. It is not perfect (lossless audio is better), but for the majority of user…

The same way niche/luxury product and services compare to fast/cheap ones: they are made with focus and intent that goes against the statistical average, which also normally would take more time and effort to make. McDonalds cooks ~great~ (edit: fair enough, decent) burgers when measured objectively, but people still go to more niche burger restaurants because they want something different and made with more care. Th…

> McDonalds cooks great burgers when measured objectively

Wait, what? In what world are McDonalds burgers "great"? They're cheap. Maybe even a good value. But that's not the same as great.

Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

#33

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #6
SamuelAdams wrote: post #4

My question on AI generated contributions and content in general: on a long enough timeline, with ever improving advancements in AI, how can people reliably tell the difference between human and AI generated efforts? Sure now it is easy, but in 3-10 years AI will get significantly better. It is a lot like the audio quality of an MP3 recording. It is not perfect (lossless audio is better), but for the majority of user…

You say "on a long enough timeline", but you already can't tell today in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing. I think a lot of anti-LLM opinions just come from interacting with the lowest effort LLM slop and someone not realizing that it's really a problem with a low value person behind it. It's why "no AI allowed" is pointless; high value contributors won't follow it because they know how to use it pro…

> It's why "no AI allowed" is pointless … If you tell me AI isn't allowed because it writes bad code

I disagree that the rule is pointless, and your last point is a strawman. AI is disallowed because it’s the manner in which the would-be contributors are attempting to contribute to these projects. It’s a proxy rule.

Unfortunately for AI maximalists, code is more than just letters on the screen. There needs to be human understanding, and if you’re not a core contributor who’s proven you’re willing to stick around when shit hits the fan, a +3000 PR is a liability, not an asset.

Maybe there needs to be something like the MMORPG concept of “Dragon Kill Points (DKP)”, where you’re not entitled to loot (contribution) until you’ve proven that you give a shit.

Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

#34

Post by beepbooptheory »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #6
SamuelAdams wrote: post #4

My question on AI generated contributions and content in general: on a long enough timeline, with ever improving advancements in AI, how can people reliably tell the difference between human and AI generated efforts? Sure now it is easy, but in 3-10 years AI will get significantly better. It is a lot like the audio quality of an MP3 recording. It is not perfect (lossless audio is better), but for the majority of user…

You say "on a long enough timeline", but you already can't tell today in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing. I think a lot of anti-LLM opinions just come from interacting with the lowest effort LLM slop and someone not realizing that it's really a problem with a low value person behind it. It's why "no AI allowed" is pointless; high value contributors won't follow it because they know how to use it pro…

But then why have any contributions at all?

Like its been years and years now, if all this is true, you'd think there would be more of a paradigm shift? I'm happy I guess waiting for Godot like everyone else, but the shadows are getting a little long now, people are starting to just repeat the same things over and over.

Like, I am so tired now, it's causing such messes everywhere. Can all the best things about AI be manifest soon? Is there a timeline?

Like what can I take so that I can see the brave new world just out of reach? Where can I go? If I could just even taste the mindset of the true believer for a moment, I feel like it would be a reprieve.

Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

#35

Post by nananana9 »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #6
SamuelAdams wrote: post #4

My question on AI generated contributions and content in general: on a long enough timeline, with ever improving advancements in AI, how can people reliably tell the difference between human and AI generated efforts? Sure now it is easy, but in 3-10 years AI will get significantly better. It is a lot like the audio quality of an MP3 recording. It is not perfect (lossless audio is better), but for the majority of user…

You say "on a long enough timeline", but you already can't tell today in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing. I think a lot of anti-LLM opinions just come from interacting with the lowest effort LLM slop and someone not realizing that it's really a problem with a low value person behind it. It's why "no AI allowed" is pointless; high value contributors won't follow it because they know how to use it pro…

I don't see an issue here. You keep using AI to create high value contributions in the projects that accept it, I will keep not using it in mine, and we can see who wins out in 10 years.

Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

#36

Post by SlinkyOnStairs »

sheepscreek wrote: post #8
SamuelAdams wrote: post #4

My question on AI generated contributions and content in general: on a long enough timeline, with ever improving advancements in AI, how can people reliably tell the difference between human and AI generated efforts? Sure now it is easy, but in 3-10 years AI will get significantly better. It is a lot like the audio quality of an MP3 recording. It is not perfect (lossless audio is better), but for the majority of user…

Precisely. “AI” contributions should be seen as an extension of the individual. If anything, they could ask that the account belong to a person and not be a second bot only account. Basically, a person’s own reputation should be on the line.

Reputation isn't very relevant here. Yes, for established well known FOSS developers, their reputation will tank if they put out sloppy PRs and people will just ignore them.

But the projects aren't drowning under PRs from reputable people. They're drowning in drive-by PRs from people with no reputation to speak of. Even if you outright ban their account, they'll just spin up a new one and try again.

Blocking AI submissions serves as a heuristic to reduce this flood of PRs, because the alternative is to ban submissions from people without reputation, and that'd be very harmful to open source.

And AI cannot be the solution here, because open source projects have no funds. Asking maintainers to fork over $200/month for "AI code reviews" just kills the project.

Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

#37

Post by cindyllm »

datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #33
hombre_fatal wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say "on a long enough timeline", but you already can't tell today in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing. I think a lot of anti-LLM opinions just come from interacting with the lowest effort LLM slop and someone not realizing that it's really a problem with a low value person behind it. It's why "no AI allowed" is pointless; high value contributors won't follow it because they know how to use it pro…

> It's why "no AI allowed" is pointless … If you tell me AI isn't allowed because it writes bad code I disagree that the rule is pointless, and your last point is a strawman. AI is disallowed because it’s the manner in which the would-be contributors are attempting to contribute to these projects. It’s a proxy rule. Unfortunately for AI maximalists, code is more than just letters on the screen. There needs to be huma…

[dead]

Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

#38

Post by est31 »

I think it's a complicated issue.

A lot of low quality AI contributions arrive using free tiers of these AI models, the output of which is pretty crap. On the other hand, if you max out the model configs, i.e. get "the best money can buy", then those models are actually quite useful and powerful.

OSS should not miss out on the power LLMs can unleash. Talking about the maxed out versions of the newest models only, i.e. stuff like Claude 4.5+ and Gemini 3, so developments of the last 5 months.

But at the same time, maintainers should not have to review code written by a low quality model (and the high quality models, for now, are all closed, although I heard good things about Minmax 2.5 but I haven't tried it).

Given how hard it is to tell which model made a specific output, without doing an actual review, I think it would make most sense to have a rule restricting AI access to trusted contributors only, i.e. maintainers as a start, and maybe some trusted group of contributors where you know that they use the expensive but useful models, and not the cheap but crap models.

Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

#39

Post by jazzyjackson »

aerodexis wrote: post #28
sheepscreek wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely. “AI” contributions should be seen as an extension of the individual. If anything, they could ask that the account belong to a person and not be a second bot only account. Basically, a person’s own reputation should be on the line.

Interesting argument for AI ethics in general. It takes the form of "guns don't kill people - people kill people".

Unfortunately ChatGPT turned “text continuation” into “separate entity you can talk to”

Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions

#40

Post by dataflow »

aerodexis wrote: post #28
sheepscreek wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely. “AI” contributions should be seen as an extension of the individual. If anything, they could ask that the account belong to a person and not be a second bot only account. Basically, a person’s own reputation should be on the line.

Interesting argument for AI ethics in general. It takes the form of "guns don't kill people - people kill people".

I don't think any side on the issue of gun ownership has ever claimed that statement is false, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Post reply on HN