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

LLM policy?

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 145 posts

Re: LLM policy?

#41

Post by kijin »

I have a simple rule: whenever I receive an issue or PR from an unfamiliar account, I skim the text and/or code and post 1-2 quick questions. If the submitter responds intelligently, then the issue warrants a more in-depth investigation. If not, the submitter clearly doesn't think that the issue is worth following up on, so it's not worth my time, either.

The more code a PR contains, the more thorough knowledge of it the submitter must demonstrate in order to be accepted as a serious contributor.

It doesn't matter if it was written by a human or an LLM. What matters is whether we can have a productive discussion about some potential problem. If an LLM passes the test, well it's a good doggy, no need to kick it out. I'd rather talk with an intelligent LLM than a clueless human who is trying to use github as a support forum.

Re: LLM policy?

#42

Post by dSebastien »

Prompt injection must be a really lucrative activity. I wonder how many hidden prompts will be detected on GitHub in the coming years and how many devs dare point LLMs at GitHub issues

Re: LLM policy?

#43

Post by CGamesPlay »

TingPing wrote: post #8
CGamesPlay wrote: post #7

I make a lot of drive-by contributions, and I use AI coding tools. I submitted my first PR that is a cross between those two recently. It's somewhere between "vibe-coded" and "vibe-engineered", where I definitely read the resulting code, had the agent make multiple revisions, and deployed the result on my own infrastructure before submitting a PR. In the PR I clearly stated that it was done by a coding agent. I can't…

I think it’s disrespectful of others to throw generated code their way. They become responsible for it and often donate their time.

I think it's disrespectful to throw bad code on somebody else, regardless of its provenance. And (as a professional who uses AI coding agents) I understand that LLM code is often bad code. But the OP isn't complaining about the deluge of bad code being submitted as PRs, they're complaining about LLM code being submitted as PRs.

I've also been on the other side of this, receiving some spammy LLM-generated irrelevant "security vulnerabilities", so I also get the desire for some filtering. I hope projects don't adopt blanket hard-line "no AI" policies, which will only be selectively enforced against new contributors where the code "smells like" LLM code, but that's what I'm afraid will happen.

Re: LLM policy?

#44

Post by wilya7 »

SoftTalker wrote: post #4

I think everything has a growing problem with LLM/AI generated content. Emails, blog posts, news articles, research papers, grant applications, business proposals, music, art, pretty much everything you can think of. There’s already more human produced content in the world than anyone could ever hope to consume, we don’t need more from AI.

Large Language Models cannot think but they can self correct. You can think but clearly have some serious problems self-correcting your wrong assumptions. Who is smarter then?

Re: LLM policy?

#45

Post by wombatpm »

xeeeeeeeeeeenu wrote: post #32

Unfortunately, LLMs empower "contributors" who can't be bothered to put in any effort and who don't care about the negative impact of their actions on the maintainers. The open-source community, generally speaking, is a high-trust society and I'm afraid that LLM abuse may turn it into a low-trust society. The end result will be worse than the status quo for everyone involved.

AI seems like a rerun of the Eternal September problem that eventually killed internet news groups and a lot of email discussion lists.

Re: LLM policy?

#46

Post by lynx97 »

0xfffafaCrash wrote: post #28
SoftTalker wrote: post #4

I think everything has a growing problem with LLM/AI generated content. Emails, blog posts, news articles, research papers, grant applications, business proposals, music, art, pretty much everything you can think of. There’s already more human produced content in the world than anyone could ever hope to consume, we don’t need more from AI.

> There’s already more human produced content in the world than anyone could ever hope to consume, we don’t need more from AI. Even if you think the harms of AI/machine generated content outweigh the good, this is not a winning argument. People don’t just consume arbitrary content for the sake of consuming any existing content. That’s rarely the point of it. People look for all kinds of things that don’t exist yet —…

Just happened to me yesterday. I realized I'd really like to watch a long-form video on Huygens Clock. Something between a short (god damnit) and Quicksilver. Thought there must be something detailed. Nope, at least Youtube let me down. Or the search algo, who knows. Since they removed the "20+ minutes" button it has become basically useless to search on YT.

Re: LLM policy?

#47

Post by blutoot »

Since the cat is out of the bag (i.e. there's no stopping of LLM-generated code / PR / issues now that vibe-coding is fairly universally accessible), the only thing in our (especially those who are custodians of software systems and products) control is to invest a lot more in testing and evals. Just plain opposing LLM-generated content as a policy is a losing battle at this point..

Re: LLM policy?

#48

Post by wombatpm »

jmyeet wrote: post #14

Some years ago I read the Neal Stephenson book Anathem . SPOILERS: it has a version of the Internet called the Reticulum and one thing I remember is that it was filled with garbage. True information subtly changed multiple times until it was garbage. And there were agents to see through the garbage. I imagined this to be a neverending arms race. Honestly, this is kind of where I see LLM generated content going where…

If I could find a way to turn LLM training into some sort of proof of work crypto mining I could cut the energy use in half!

Re: LLM policy?

#49

Post by o11c »

shashankg09 wrote: post #39

This is a poor take. We need to stop slop and low effort issues/PRs. Stopping AI generated code is a lost battle because detecting that in high quality work is impossible.

If people can't make a good (PR, story, or whatever) without AI, they certainly can't do it with AI, because using the AI is strictly more difficult - it requires all the original skill, plus the skill to work around the AI's quirks.

This is arguably isomorphic to Kernighan's Law:

> Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. So if you’re as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it?

Re: LLM policy?

#50

Post by catlifeonmars »

somenameforme wrote: post #12
SoftTalker wrote: post #4

I think everything has a growing problem with LLM/AI generated content. Emails, blog posts, news articles, research papers, grant applications, business proposals, music, art, pretty much everything you can think of. There’s already more human produced content in the world than anyone could ever hope to consume, we don’t need more from AI.

In some ways I'm starting to enjoy this. Do you remember the 419 scams? 'Hi, I'm a Nigerian prince named Michael Jordan. Give me $50 so I can buy some chemicals to clean a bunch of money I secretly stowed away and I'll send you $5000.' People actually used to fall for that. Of course some people probably still would (and a lot more certainly gets blocked by spam blockers) but I think overall society grew less substan…

You seem to assume people who are the victims of scams are people who are more naive. But that’s not how it works. Scams try to catch people at their weakest. It’s not if but when.
Post reply on HN