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

Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

gitlab.redox-os.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 504 posts

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#321

Post by cmrdporcupine »

cptroot wrote: post #309
flammafex wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I think you'll find the luddites to be a more informative historical analogy. A new tool arrives in an industry staffed by craftsmen, providing capital a lever to raise profits at the expense of quality. Is it surprising that worker co-ops would choose not to pull that lever?

The mistake here with both the Luddites and this is to mistake the tool for the actual problem (depending on where you sit), which is mechanization and automation and ultimately capitalism itself.

Opposing the machine does/did nothing.

Political organizing around unions, state regulations of the labour market, agitational political parties did (and can again).

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#322

Post by skeeter2020 »

GorbachevyChase wrote: post #278
zozbot234 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, LLMs generate useless word salad and nonsense even when working on issues text, you absolutely have to reword the writing from scratch otherwise it's just an annoyance and a complete waste of time. Even a good prompt doesn't help this all that much since it's just how the tool works under the hood: it doesn't have a goal of saying anything specific in the clearest possible way and inwardly rewording it…

I don’t think you’re being serious. Claude and GPT regularly write programs that are way better than what I would’ve written. Maybe you haven’t used a decent harness or a model released in the last year? It’s usually verbose, whereas I would try the simplest thing that could possibly work. However, it can knock out but would have taken me multiple weekends in a few minutes. The value proposition isn’t even close. It’…

let me translate this for the GP: "you're doing it wrong".

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#323

Post by skeeter2020 »

fireflash38 wrote: post #316
GorbachevyChase wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think you’re being serious. Claude and GPT regularly write programs that are way better than what I would’ve written. Maybe you haven’t used a decent harness or a model released in the last year? It’s usually verbose, whereas I would try the simplest thing that could possibly work. However, it can knock out but would have taken me multiple weekends in a few minutes. The value proposition isn’t even close. It’…

Having reviewed a lot of Ai-written python code, I think it's absolute nonsense. It never picks a style, it'll alternate between exceptions and then return codes. It'll massively overcomplicate things. It'll reference things that straight up don't exist. But boy is it brilliant at a fuzzy find and replace.

if it wasn't so maddening it would be funny when you literally have to tell it to slow down, focus and think. My tinfoil hat suggests this is intentional to make me treat it like a real, live junior dev!

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#324

Post by skeeter2020 »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #170
jacquesm wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My rules of thumb is much shorter: don't. The open source world has already been ripped off by AI the last thing they need is for AI to pollute the pedigree of the codebase.

Suppose almost all work in the future is done via LLMs, just like almost all transportation is done today via cars instead of horses. Do you think your worldview is still a reasonable one under those conditions?

even if this was true or someday will be (big IF), is it worth looking for valid counter workflows? example: in many parts of the US and Canada the Mennonites are incredibly productive farmers and massive adopters of technology while also keeping very strict limits on where/how and when it is used. If we had the same motivations and discipline in software could we walk a line that both benefited from and controlled AI? I don't know the answer.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#325

Post by skeeter2020 »

logicprog wrote: post #182
sillysaurusx wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose almost all work in the future is done via LLMs, just like almost all transportation is done today via cars instead of horses. Do you think your worldview is still a reasonable one under those conditions?

I say let people hold this stance. We, agentic coders, can easily enough fork their project and add whatever the features or refinements we wanted, and use that fork for ourselves, but also make it available for others in case other people want to use it for the extra features and polish as well. With AI, it's very easy to form a good architectural understanding of a large code base and figure out how to modify it in…

>> but also make it available for others in case other people want to use it for the extra features and polish as well.

this feels like the place where your approach breaks down. I have had very poor results trying to build a foundation that CAN be polished, or where features don't quickly feel like a jenga tower. I'm wondering if the success we've seen is because AI is building on top of, or we're early days in "foundational" work? Is anyone aware of studies comparing longer term structural aspects? is it too early?

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#326

Post by jacquesm »

orf wrote: post #315
jacquesm wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll make this blunt: if you're a guy then half the population is not capable of 'enforcing their boundaries' against you, more so if you count children. The problem you seem to have is to think that if someone is not capable of enforcing their boundaries that they are not allowed to have those boundaries and that it is your god given right to do whatever the F* you want just because you can. That's not how the world…

[flagged]

You're on the wrong side of that discussion. And you are now also on my blocklist, goodbye.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#327

Post by jacquesm »

devonkelley wrote: post #320
ndriscoll wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically all of my actual programming work has been done by LLMs since January. My team actually demoed a PoC last week to hook up Codex to our Slack channel to become our first level on-call, and in the case of a defect (e.g. a pagerduty alert, or a question that suggests something is broken), go debug, push a fix for review, and suggest any mitigations. Prior to that, I basically pushed for my team to do the same…

[dead]

That's sounds like the perfect recipe for turning a small problem into a much larger one. 'on call' is where you want your quality people, not your silicon slop generator.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#329

Post by jacquesm »

skeeter2020 wrote: post #324
sillysaurusx wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose almost all work in the future is done via LLMs, just like almost all transportation is done today via cars instead of horses. Do you think your worldview is still a reasonable one under those conditions?

even if this was true or someday will be (big IF), is it worth looking for valid counter workflows? example: in many parts of the US and Canada the Mennonites are incredibly productive farmers and massive adopters of technology while also keeping very strict limits on where/how and when it is used. If we had the same motivations and discipline in software could we walk a line that both benefited from and controlled A…

Good one, I had not made the connection, but yes. Tech is here to serve, at our pleasure, not to be forcibly consumed.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#330

Post by ndriscoll »

devonkelley wrote: post #320
ndriscoll wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically all of my actual programming work has been done by LLMs since January. My team actually demoed a PoC last week to hook up Codex to our Slack channel to become our first level on-call, and in the case of a defect (e.g. a pagerduty alert, or a question that suggests something is broken), go debug, push a fix for review, and suggest any mitigations. Prior to that, I basically pushed for my team to do the same…

[dead]

Ultimately you always have to trust people to be judicious, but that's why it doesn't make any changes itself. Only suggests mitigations (and my team knows what actions are safe, has context for recent changes, etc). It's not entirely a black box though. e.g. I've prompted it to collect and provide a concrete evidence chain (relevant commands+output, code paths) along with competing hypotheses as it works. Same as humans should be doing as they debug (e.g. don't just say "it's this"; paste your evidence as you go and be precise about what you know vs what you believe).
Post reply on HN