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

491–500 of 504 posts

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

#491

Post by dang »

eschaton wrote: post #481
orf wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’d send me a contributor agreement, after I’ve contributed, to retroactively ask if I used a LLM to write the code, and if I refused you’d then sue me for nebulous ill-defined damages and for breaching a non-existent contract? So in your head, I could contribute a change that introduces a bug and as a result you could sue me for the time it took you to fix it? … Are you OK? I was hoping for something with a “I’m a…

[flagged]

You broke the site guidelines repeatedly in this thread, including by crossing into quite vicious personal attack. I realize that you were provoked, but you were also provoking.

I'm not going to ban you for this episode because everyone goes on tilt sometimes. But if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and do what it takes to recalibrate so that you're using the site as intended going forward, we'd be grateful.

Edit: actually you went to a real extreme:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47342355

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47333590

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47331531

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47331357

Surely you know that you can't do this on HN. "sociopathic piece of shit [...] Do the world a favor and remove yourself" isn't just bannable, it's 100x what we'd ban an account for.

You've been a good user generally* so I'm going to put this down to the unfortunate circumstances of this thread, but please don't do it again.

(* although you've broken the site guidelines at other times too, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46156715, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46132102)

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

#492

Post by dang »

flammafex wrote: post #432
eschaton wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Taint” has been a term of art in Open Source for decades. That you don’t know this reveals your ignorance, not any sort of cleverness. LLMs regurgitate their training data. If they’re generating code, they’re not modeling the syntax of a language to solve a problem, they’re reproducing code they ingested, code that is covered by copyright. Just regurgitating that code via an LLM rather than directly from your editor…

[flagged]

You've unfortunately been breaking the site guidelines quite a lot already, and not only in this thread. Would you mind reviewing them and using HN as intended? We'd be grateful:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#494

Post by pmarreck »

eschaton wrote: post #476
pmarreck wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It IS their own work. The simplest refutation of your point of view is, who or what is responsible if the work submission is wrong? It will always be the person’s, never the computer’s. Conveniently, AI always acts as if it has no skin in the game… because it literally and figuratively doesn’t… so for people to treat it like it does, should be penalized

If it’s the output of an LLM, it’s not their own work.

Who prompted the LLM?

Who vetted the output?

Who ensured there was adequate test coverage?

Who insisted on a certain design?

Who is to blame if it's bad code? That is the same entity that is responsible, and the same entity that "did it"

tl;dr your stance is full of poop, my dude

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

#495

Post by eschaton »

pmarreck wrote: post #494
eschaton wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it’s the output of an LLM, it’s not their own work.

Who prompted the LLM? Who vetted the output? Who ensured there was adequate test coverage? Who insisted on a certain design? Who is to blame if it's bad code? That is the same entity that is responsible, and the same entity that "did it" tl;dr your stance is full of poop, my dude

“I looked up the topic on Wikipedia and I highlighted the text and I selected copy and I selected paste so I don’t see how this is plagiarism.”

That’s what you sound like.

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

#496

Post by pmarreck »

eschaton wrote: post #495
pmarreck wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who prompted the LLM? Who vetted the output? Who ensured there was adequate test coverage? Who insisted on a certain design? Who is to blame if it's bad code? That is the same entity that is responsible, and the same entity that "did it" tl;dr your stance is full of poop, my dude

“I looked up the topic on Wikipedia and I highlighted the text and I selected copy and I selected paste so I don’t see how this is plagiarism.” That’s what you sound like.

You sound like someone who has literally zero understanding as to why that is a ridiculous comparison.

There are a thousand and one ways that I participate when building something with LLM assistance. Everything from ORIGINATING AN IDEA TO BEGIN WITH, to working on a thorough spec for it, to ensuring tests are actually valid, to asking for specific designs like hexagonal design, to specific things like benchmarks... literally ALL OF THE INITIATIVE IS MINE, AND ALL OF THE SUCCESS/FAILURE CONSEQUENCES ARE MINE, AND THAT IS ULTIMATELY ALL THAT MATTERS

Please head towards a different career if you now have a stupid and contrived excuse not to continue working with the machines, because you sound like a whining child

And you're not answering the question, because you know it would end your point: WHO OR WHAT IS RESPONSIBLE IF THE CODE SUCCEEDS OR FAILS?

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

#497

Post by eschaton »

pmarreck wrote: post #496
eschaton wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“I looked up the topic on Wikipedia and I highlighted the text and I selected copy and I selected paste so I don’t see how this is plagiarism.” That’s what you sound like.

You sound like someone who has literally zero understanding as to why that is a ridiculous comparison. There are a thousand and one ways that I participate when building something with LLM assistance. Everything from ORIGINATING AN IDEA TO BEGIN WITH, to working on a thorough spec for it, to ensuring tests are actually valid, to asking for specific designs like hexagonal design, to specific things like benchmarks...…

I started working in the industry when you were able to buy a Lisp Machine new and have been studying AI even longer, and I’ve been very successful in it. I not only know what I’m talking about, I have the experience to back it up.

You sound like someone who’s deeply in denial about exactly how the LLM plagiarism machines work. You really do sound like a student defending themselves against a plagiarism charge by asserting that since they did the work of choosing the text to put into their essay and massaging the grammar so it fit, nobody should care where it came from.

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

#498

Post by BlackFly »

hparadiz wrote: post #30
BlackFly wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is enforceable, I think you mean to say that it cannot be prevented since people can attempt to hide their usage? Most rules and laws are like that, you proscribe some behavior but that doesn't prevent people from doing it. Therefore you typically need to also define punishments: > This policy is not open to discussion, any content submitted that is clearly labelled as LLM-generated (including issues, merge reques…

What happens when the PR is clear, reasonable, short, checked by a human, and clearly fixes, implements, or otherwise improves the code base and has no alternative implementation that is reasonably different from the initially presented version?

Yes, what happens when the murder looks like a heart attack? This isn't hypothetical, some assassinations occur like this. That doesn't make murder laws unenforceable.

Lots of people try to get away with perfect crimes and sometimes do. That doesn't make the rule unenforceable, it just highlights the limits of human knowledge in the face of a dishonest person. Hence the escalations for trying to destroy evidence of crimes or in this case to work around the AI policy. Here, instead of just closing your PR, they ban you if you try to hide it.

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

#499

Post by BlackFly »

khalic wrote: post #231
BlackFly wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is enforceable, I think you mean to say that it cannot be prevented since people can attempt to hide their usage? Most rules and laws are like that, you proscribe some behavior but that doesn't prevent people from doing it. Therefore you typically need to also define punishments: > This policy is not open to discussion, any content submitted that is clearly labelled as LLM-generated (including issues, merge reques…

Unenforceable means they can't actually enforce it since they can't discriminate high quality LLM code from hand typed

Well, unenforceable isn't a synonym for undetectable or awkward. Their policy indicates that they are aware of this difficulty: if you admit to using AI then they close your pull request, if you do not admit to using AI but evidence later surfaces that you did then they ban you. They can enforce this.

The hope here is the same hope as most laws: that lies eventually catch up to people. That truth comes to light. But sure, in the meanwhile, there are always dishonest people around trying to flout rules to varying degrees of success. Some are caught right away, some live their entire lives without it catching up to them. That doesn't make the rule unenforceable, that just highlights the limits of rules: it requires evidence that can be hard to come by.

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

#500

Post by jaredcwhite »

pmarreck wrote: post #494
eschaton wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it’s the output of an LLM, it’s not their own work.

Who prompted the LLM? Who vetted the output? Who ensured there was adequate test coverage? Who insisted on a certain design? Who is to blame if it's bad code? That is the same entity that is responsible, and the same entity that "did it" tl;dr your stance is full of poop, my dude

and your stance is not your own if you got the LLM to stand for you. ;-P

human prompting != human production

Post reply on HN