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

361–370 of 504 posts

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

#361

Post by Terr_ »

h3lp wrote: post #317
notpachet wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Claude and GPT regularly write programs that are way better than what I would’ve written Is that really true? Like, if you took the time to plan it carefully, dot every i, cross every t? The way I think of LLM's is as "median targeters" -- they reliably produce output at the centre of the bell curve from their training set. So if you're working in a language that you're unfamiliar with -- let's say I wanted to make…

A lot of computer users are domain experts in something like chemistry or physics or material science. Computing to them is just a tool in their field, e.g. simulating molecular dynamics, or radiation transfer. They dot every i and cross every t _in_their_competency_domain_, but the underlying code may be a horrible FORTRAN mess. LLMs potentially can help them write modern code using modern libraries and tooling. My…

The difference is that compilers involve rules we can enumerate, adjust, etc.

Consider calculators: Their consistency and adherence to requirements was necessary for adoption. Nobody would be using them if they gave unpredictable wrong answers, or where calculations involving 420 and 69 somehow keep yielding 5318008. (To be read upside-down, of course.)

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

#362

Post by logicprog »

FridgeSeal wrote: post #360
logicprog wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> We, agentic coders, can easily enough fork their project and add whatever the features Bold of you to assume that people won’t move (and their code along with it) to spaces where parasitic behaviour like this doesn’t occur, locking you out. In addition to just being a straight-up rude, disrespectful and parasite position to take, you’re effectively poisoning your own well.

Since when is maintaining a personal patch set / fork parasitic? And in what way does it harm them, such that they should move to spaces where it doesn't happen, as a result? Also, isn't the entire point of open source precisely to enable people to make and use modifications of code if they want even if they don't want to hand code over? Also, that would be essentially making code closed source — do you think OSS is just going to die completely? Or would people make alternative projects? Additionally, this assumes coders who are fine with AI can't make anything new themselves, when if anything we've seen the opposite (see the phenomenon of reimplementing other projects that's been going around).

Additionally, if they accept AI contributions, I try, when I have the time and energy, make sure my PRs are high quality, and provide them. If they don't, then I'll go off and do my own thing, because that's literally what they asked me to do, and I wasn't going to contribute otherwise. I fail to see how that's rude or parasitic or disrespectful in any way except my assumption that the more featureful and polished forks might eventually win out.

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

#363

Post by wang_li »

layer8 wrote: post #83
throwaway2037 wrote: post #12

> any content submitted that is clearly labelled as LLM-generated (including issues, merge requests, and merge request descriptions) will be immediately closed Note the word "clearly". Weirdly, as a native English speaker this term makes the policy less strict. What about submarine LLM submissions? I have no beef with Redox OS. I wish them well. This feels like the newest form of OSS virtue signaling.

> What about submarine LLM submissions? That would constitute an attempt to circumvent their policy, with the consequence of being banned from the project. In other words, it makes not clearly labeling any LLM use a bannable offense.

It should be a litigable offense.

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

#364

Post by heavyset_go »

mech422 wrote: post #353
skeeter2020 wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

"you literally have to tell it to slow down, focus and think" - This soo much! When I get an unexpected result from claude, I ask it why - what caused it to do such-and-such. After one back and forth session like this putting up tons of guardrails on a prompt, claude literally said "you shouldn't have to teach me to think every session" !!

> When I get an unexpected result from claude, I ask it why - what caused it to do such-and-such.

No LLM can answer this question for you, it has no insight into how or why it outputted what it outputted. The reasons it gives might sound plausible, but they aren't real.

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

#365

Post by zozbot234 »

notpachet wrote: post #312
torginus wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can certainly be true for several reasons. Even in domains I'm familiar with, often making a change is costly in terms of coding effort. For example just recently I updated a component in one of our modules. The work was fairly rote (in this project we are not allowed to use LLMs). While it was absolutely necessary to do the update here, it was beneficial to do it everywhere else. I didn't do it in other places be…

I can agree with that. So essentially: "Claude and GPT regularly write programs that are way better than what I would’ve written given the amount of time I was willing to spend ."

How much time and effort are you willing to spend on maintaining that code though? The AI can't do it on its own, and the code quality is terrible enough.

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

#366

Post by ethin »

This may be an unpopular opinion, but I fully support the no-AI stance. AI-generated code belongs nowhere in an operating system or it's low level/kernel components. Especially considering the shear amount of power the kernel has over the machine. The last thing you want is an AI-generated bug crashing systems because it flipped a bit that is reserved or silently corrupting memory (or worse) because it ran in kernel mode (or similar privileges) and therefore the system didn't prevent it from doing what it was going to do. An OS (of any kind or architecture) and computer firmware is the last place I would ever want AI-generated code.

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

#367

Post by jplusequalt »

mwigdahl wrote: post #290
jacquesm wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think of myself more like a carpenter or craftsman. > I used a coding agent for the majority of my current project and I still got the "build stuff" itch scratched because Engineers are still responsible for the output and they are needed to interface between technical teams, UX, business people etc Then you are the opposite of a carpenter or a craftsman, no matter what you think about it yourself.

What term would you use for that "opposite"?

The commissioner? You don't actually possess the knowledge that went into the code, as you did not write it.

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

#368

Post by aaronbrethorst »

Terr_ wrote: post #361
h3lp wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of computer users are domain experts in something like chemistry or physics or material science. Computing to them is just a tool in their field, e.g. simulating molecular dynamics, or radiation transfer. They dot every i and cross every t _in_their_competency_domain_, but the underlying code may be a horrible FORTRAN mess. LLMs potentially can help them write modern code using modern libraries and tooling. My…

The difference is that compilers involve rules we can enumerate, adjust, etc. Consider calculators: Their consistency and adherence to requirements was necessary for adoption. Nobody would be using them if they gave unpredictable wrong answers, or where calculations involving 420 and 69 somehow keep yielding 5318008. (To be read upside-down, of course.)

nice. 3x.

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

#369

Post by decidu0us9034 »

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…

It's an operating system, not a website.
Post reply on HN