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

341–350 of 504 posts

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

#341

Post by ipaddr »

ndriscoll wrote: post #272
lkjdsklf wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But all work isn't done by LLMs at the moment and we can't be sure that it will be so the question is ridiculous. Maybe one day it will be.. And then people can reevaluate their stance then. Until that time, it's entirely reasonable to hold the position that you just don't This is especially true with how LLM generated code may affect licensing and other things. There's a lot of unknowns there and it's entirely reaso…

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…

Sounds like a company on the verge of creating a mess that will require a rewrite in a year or so. Maybe an llm can do it.

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

#342

Post by VLM »

The purpose of a LLM ban is to encourage use of LLMs to submit PRs, not discourage. The longer term effect is to eliminate FOSS competency from the hiring process.

It takes some human effort to set up a slop generator. Have the slop generator make 100 buckets of slop, humans will work hard accepting or rejecting the buckets, somewhat less than 100 buckets will be approved, the payoff for the owner of the slop generator is now they have "verified FOSS developer contribution" on their resume which translates directly into job offers and salary. Its a profitable grift, profitable enough that the remaining humans are being flooded out. The ban makes successful submission to Redox even MORE valuable than before. They can expect infinite floods of PRs now that a successful PR "proves" that Redox thinks the human owner of the slop generator did the work and should therefore be offered more jobs, paid more, etc. Technically, they're hiring and paying based on ability to set up a slop generator which is not zero value, but not as valuable as being an Official Redox Contributor.

In the long run, this eliminates FOSS competency from the hiring process. Currently FOSS competency and coding experience indicates a certain amount, however minimal, of human skill and ability to work with others. Soon, it'll mean the person claiming to be a contributor has no problem violating orders and rules, such as the ones forbidding AI submissions, and it'll be a strong signal they actively work to subvert teams for their own financial reward and benefit. Which might actually be a hiring bullet point for corporate management in more dysfunctional orgs, but probably not help individual contributors get hired.

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

#343

Post by ethbr1 »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #340
emperorxanu wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like every person stating things of this nature are literally not able to communicate effectively (though this is not a barrier anymore, you can get a dog to vibe code games with the right workflow, which to me seems like quite an intellectual thing to be able to do. Despite that, you will make this argument when trying to use copilot to do something, the worst model in the entire industry. If an AI can replac…

> If an AI can replace you at your job, you are not a very good programmer. Me and millions of other local yokel programmers who work in regional cities at small shops, in house at businesses, etc are absolutely COOKED. No I cant leet code, no I didnt go to MIT, no I dont know how O(n) is calculated when reading a function. I can scrap together a lot of useful business stuff but no I am not a very good programmer.

> no I dont know how O(n) is calculated when reading a function

   1. Confidently state "O(n)"
   2. If they give you a look, say "O(1) with some tricks"
   3. If they still give you a look, say "Just joking! O(nlogn)"

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

#344

Post by ddtaylor »

joelthelion wrote: post #211
flammafex wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

How about picking software based on how well it works?

Then we wouldn't get to virtue signal about the state of the software industry getting rid of all these starving artists.

Posted from my software made with AI assistance.

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

#345

Post by ok123456 »

cpburns2009 wrote: post #193
algoth1 wrote: post #72

What would constitute "clearly llm generated" though

The clearly LLM PRs I receive are formatted similarly to: ## Summary ... ## Problem ... ## Solution ... ## Verification ... They're too methodical, and duplicate code when they're longer than a single line fix. I've never received a pull request formatted like that from a human.

Don't you use the dialectic?

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

#346

Post by calvinmorrison »

ethbr1 wrote: post #343
calvinmorrison wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If an AI can replace you at your job, you are not a very good programmer. Me and millions of other local yokel programmers who work in regional cities at small shops, in house at businesses, etc are absolutely COOKED. No I cant leet code, no I didnt go to MIT, no I dont know how O(n) is calculated when reading a function. I can scrap together a lot of useful business stuff but no I am not a very good programmer.

> no I dont know how O(n) is calculated when reading a function 1. Confidently state "O(n)" 2. If they give you a look, say "O(1) with some tricks" 3. If they still give you a look, say "Just joking! O(nlogn)"

O(no idea)

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

#347

Post by integralid »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #340
emperorxanu wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like every person stating things of this nature are literally not able to communicate effectively (though this is not a barrier anymore, you can get a dog to vibe code games with the right workflow, which to me seems like quite an intellectual thing to be able to do. Despite that, you will make this argument when trying to use copilot to do something, the worst model in the entire industry. If an AI can replac…

> If an AI can replace you at your job, you are not a very good programmer. Me and millions of other local yokel programmers who work in regional cities at small shops, in house at businesses, etc are absolutely COOKED. No I cant leet code, no I didnt go to MIT, no I dont know how O(n) is calculated when reading a function. I can scrap together a lot of useful business stuff but no I am not a very good programmer.

>no I dont know how O(n) is calculated when reading a function

This is really, honestly not hard. Spend a few minutes reading about this, or even better, ask a LLM to explain it to you and clear your misconceptions if regular blog posts don't do it for you. This is one of the concepts that sounds scarier than it is.

edit: To be clear there are tough academic cases where complexity is harder to compute, with weird functions in O(sqrt(n)) or O(log(log(n)) or worse, but most real world code complexity is really easy to tell at glance.

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

#348

Post by orf »

flykespice wrote: post #333
orf wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but back in reality no you’re not? No more than any other contributor? If I want to use an auto-complete then I can, and I will? Restricting that is as regressive as a project trying to specify that I write code from a specific country or… standing on my head. Sure, if they want me to add a “I’m writing this standing on my head” message in the PR then I will… but I’m not.

[flagged]

Never? That would be tax avoidance and theft, both crimes.

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

#349

Post by hananova »

butILoveLife wrote: post #210
tkel wrote: post #5

Glad to see they are applying some rigor. I've started removing AI-heavy projects from my dependency tree.

Are you and Redox just going to fall behind? Projects that used to take months take days or hours. It seems well intentioned, but lots of bad ideas are like this. I was told by my customer they didn't need my help because Claude Code did the program they wanted me to quote. I sheepishly said, 'I can send an intern to work in-house if you don't want to spend internal resources on it.' I can't really imagine what kind…

Projects that used to take months still take months. LLM’s are only useful for throwaway low-quality slop. Perhaps some times the sloperator will get lucky and the end result isn’t something that will bite them in the ass. But the rest of us foresee a mountain of tech debt that will come knocking one day.

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

#350

Post by hananova »

VLM wrote: post #342

The purpose of a LLM ban is to encourage use of LLMs to submit PRs, not discourage. The longer term effect is to eliminate FOSS competency from the hiring process. It takes some human effort to set up a slop generator. Have the slop generator make 100 buckets of slop, humans will work hard accepting or rejecting the buckets, somewhat less than 100 buckets will be approved, the payoff for the owner of the slop generat…

Hi. No, the purpose of a ban is to ban the behavior. I hope this helps.
Post reply on HN