Live data from Hacker News

Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

github.com

321–330 of 427 posts

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You said you wouldn't have made it if it took longer, isn't that a barely?

But either way it's not an example of what they wanted.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#322
post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My company hired a new CTO and he asked chatgpt to write some lengthy documents about "how engineering gets done in our company". He also writes all his emails with chatgpt. I don't bother reading. Oddly enough he recently promoted a guy who has been fucking around with LLMs for years instead of working as his right hand man.

> Oddly enough he recently promoted a guy who has been fucking around with LLMs for years instead of working as his right hand man.

Why is that odd? From the rest of your description, it seems entirely predictable.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#323
post #63

Open source and libre/free software are particularly vulnerable to a future where AI-generated code is ruled to be either infringing or public domain. In the former case, disentangling AI-edits from human edits could tie a project up in legal proceedings for years and projects don't have any funding to fight a copyright suit. Specifically, code that is AI-generated and subsequently modified or incorporated in the res…

I understand what experienced developers don't want random AI contributions from no-knowledge "developers" contributing to a project. In any situation, if a human is review AI code line by line that would tie up humans for years, even ignoring anything legally. #1 There will be no verifiable way to prove something was AI generated beyond early models. #2 Software projects that somehow are 100% human developed will no…

> #2 Software projects that somehow are 100% human developed will not be competitive with AI assisted or written projects. The only room for debate on that is an apocalypse level scenario where humans fail to continue producing semiconductors or electricity.

??

"AI" code generators are still mostly overhyped nonsense that generate incorrect code all the time.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#324
post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While this is a generally true statement (and has echoes in other areas like sovereign citizens), GenAI may make copyright (and copyleft) economically redundant. While the AI we have now is not good enough to make an entire operating system when asked*, if/when they can, the benefits of all the current licensing models evaporate, and it doesn't matter if that model is proprietary with no source, or GPL, or MIT, becau…

I have a few sociophilosophical quibbles about the impact of this, but to focus on a practical part: > by that point anyone else can reproduce your OS for whatever the cost of tokens is without ever touching your code. Do you think that the cost of tokens will remain low enough once these companies for now operating at loss have to be profitable, and it really is going to be “anyone else”? Or, would it be limited to…

> Do you think that the cost of tokens will remain low enough once these companies for now operating at loss have to be profitable

New techniques are coming, new hardware processes are being developed, and the incremental unit cost is low. Once they fill up the labs, they'll start selling to consumers till the price becomes the cost of a bucket of sand and the cost to power a light-bulb.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd also worry that a language model is much more likely to introduce subtle logical errors, potentially ones which violate the hypervisor's security boundaries - and a user relying heavily on that model to write code for them will be much less prepared to detect those errors.

Generally speaking AI will make it easier to write more secure code. Tooling and automation help a lot with security and AI makes it easier to write good tooling. I would wager good money that in a few years the most security-focused companies will be relying heavily on AI somewhere in their software supply chain. So I don't think this policy is about security posture. No doubt human experts are reviewing the securit…

> Generally speaking AI will make it easier to write more secure code.

https://www.backslash.security/press-releases/backslash-secu...

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#326
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Had someone higher up ask about something in my area of expertise. I said I didn't think is was possible, he followed up with a chatGPT conversation he had where it "gave him some ideas that we could use as an approach", as if that was some useful insight. This is the same people that think that "learning to code" is a translation issue they don't have time for as opposed to experience they don't have.

You should send him a chatGPT critique of his management style.

(Or not, unless you enjoy workplace drama.)

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP, but: I'm getting towards the end of a vibe coded ZFS storage backend to ganeti that includes the ability to live migrate VMs to another host by: taking snapshot and replicating it to target, pausing VM, taking another incremental snapshot and replicating it, and then unpausing the VM on the new destination machine. https://github.com/linsomniac/ganeti/tree/newzfs Other LLM tools I've built this week: This aft…

All the features you mentioned are not coming from the AI. Here it is invoking the actual zfs commands: https://github.com/ganeti/ganeti/compare/master...linsomniac... All the extra python boilerplate just makes it harder to understand IMHO.

I can't imagine they ever even looked at what they checked in, because it includes code that the LLM was using to investigate other code.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#328
post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's happening slowly all around. It's not obvious because people producing high quality stuff have no incentive at all to mark their changes as AI-generated. But there are also local tools generated faster than you could adjust existing tools to do what you want. I'm running 3 things now just for myself that I generated from scratch instead of trying to send feature requests to existing apps I can buy. It's only goi…

> 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…

You are just not listening to the right places.

fly.pieter.com made a fortune while he live vide coded it on Twitter. One made making a modern multiplayer game.

Or Michael Luo, who got a legal notice after making a much cheaper app that did the same as docusign https://analyticsindiamag.com/ai-news-updates/vibe-coder-get...

There are others, but if you have found a gold mine, why would you inform the world?

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#329
post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone whose code is in a used model's training set.* This is about future existential tail risk, not current risk. * Depending on future court decisions in different jurisdictions

Again, seems so implausible that it's not worth worrying about.

It is implausible until it isn't and qemu is taking a very cheap and easy step to outright ban it and covering their ass just in case. The threat is low plausibility but high risk and thus a valid one to consider.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#330
I don't blame them for worrying about it. The policy should not be to forbid it but make sure you don't leave artifacts because I guarantee, people are going to use a bot to write their code. Hell, in six months, I doubt you will be able to get a code editor that doesn't use AI for code completion at least.

Also, AI coded programs will be copyrightable just like the old days. You think the big corps are going to both not use bot coding and give up ownership of their code? Fat chance.

Remember the Micky Mouse copyright extension? If the courts aren't sensible, we will have one of those the next day.

The old days ended very abruptly this time.

Post reply on HN