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

Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–427 of 427 posts

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#421

Post by make3 »

blibble wrote: post #65
ants_everywhere wrote: post #28

This is signed off primarily by RedHat, and they tend to be pretty serious/corporate. I suspect their concern is not so much whether users have own the copyright to AI output but rather the risk that AI will spit out code from its training set that belongs to another project. Most hypervisors are closed source and some are developed by litigious companies.

> but rather the risk that AI will spit out code from its training set that belongs to another project. this is everything that it spits out

Even with an interpretation of LLMs where they only learn through some debatable level of generalization in "pattern matching", they do show some fairly strong ability to contextualize and adapt their outputs to the situation through more than copy-pasting, otherwise they would be completely useless.

I get wanting to hate GenAI, for different valid reasons. But this take is incorrect.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#422

Post by VGHN7XDuOXPAzol »

ben_w wrote: post #276
amake wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> #2 Software projects that somehow are 100% human developed will not be competitive with AI assisted or written projects Still waiting to see evidence of AI-driven projects eating the lunch of "traditional" projects.

How can you tell which project is which? I mean, sure, there's plenty of devs who refuse to use AI, but how many projects rather than individuals are in each category? And is Microsoft "traditional"? I name them specifically because their CEO claims 20-30% of their new code is AI generated: https://techcrunch.com/2025/04/29/microsoft-ceo-says-up-to-3...

This claim just seems like sensationalist marketing BS. If you find the real quote:

> “I’d say maybe 20%, 30% of the code that is inside of our repos today and some of our projects are probably all written by software,” Nadella said during a conversation before a live audience with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

— https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/29/satya-nadella-says-as-much-a...

'maybe', 'probably', 'some of our projects', 'by software'

'software' would include many sorts of tools that are not AI.

Either the CEO talks like a primary school child unintentionally or it's on purpose to drive some clicks without saying anything 'technically' wrong.

And this is the CEO of a company that benefits from the doubt.

Am I too cynical?

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#423

Post by gerdesj »

jekwoooooe wrote: post #312
gerdesj wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When enough people don't want to do it anymore. Feel free to step up, live with email patches, and add to the numbers of those who don't like it and say so. Why is it archaic if it works? I get there might be other ways to do patch sharing and discussion but what exactly is your problem with email as a transport? You might as well describe voice and ears as archaic!

Archaic: Very old or old fashioned

Dictionaries work fine for those with eyes, minds and fingers.

This mechanistic effort at a definition is insufficient. How on earth can whatever this is manage less than a thumb through a dictionary?

Archaic has way more meanings than just "old".

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#424

Post by int_19h »

ben_w wrote: post #397
throwawayoldie wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's the CEO of a large corporation. You have to allow for the significant possibility that he's either lying or doesn't know what he's talking about.

Sure. But what's the alternative way of finding out? Most (perhaps all) places I've worked have had NDAs, which means statements like this are one of the few ways most of us find out what companies like MS are doing internally. The only other ways I can think of are when hackers leak their entire commit history, or if a court case reveals it. (I don't expect a whistleblower to do so unless they're also triggering one…

My former colleagues at Microsoft have a few things to say about Satya's statement, but none of them are SFW.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#425

Post by School-Cotton »

behringer wrote: post #173
kazinator wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the first place, in order to post to StackOverflow, you are required to have the copyright over the code, and be able to grant them a perpetual license. They redistribute the material under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ This allows visitors to use the material, with attribution. One can, of course, use the ideas in a SO answer to develop one's own solution.

Show me the professional code base with the attribution to stack overflow and I'll eat my hat.

https://github.com/search?q=repo%3AMaterializeInc%2Fmaterial...

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#426

Post by bonzini »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #364
bonzini wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good luck debugging

You don't debug AI-generated code - you throw the problematic chunk away and have AI write it again, and if that doesn't help, you repeat the process, possibly with larger chunks. Okay, not in every case, but in many, and that's where we're headed. The reason is economics - i.e. the same reason approximately no one in the West repairs their clothes or appliances; they just throw the damaged thing away and buy a new o…

> You don't debug AI-generated code - you throw the problematic chunk away and have AI write it again, and if that doesn't help, you repeat the process, possibly with larger chunks.

That makes absolutely no sense.

Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators

#427

Post by ben_w »

int_19h wrote: post #424
ben_w wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But what's the alternative way of finding out? Most (perhaps all) places I've worked have had NDAs, which means statements like this are one of the few ways most of us find out what companies like MS are doing internally. The only other ways I can think of are when hackers leak their entire commit history, or if a court case reveals it. (I don't expect a whistleblower to do so unless they're also triggering one…

My former colleagues at Microsoft have a few things to say about Satya's statement, but none of them are SFW.

I can very much believe it, but that doesn't really fix the problem of public vs. private information.
Post reply on HN