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

Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–497 of 497 posts

Re: Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"

#491

Post by jfoster »

dfxm12 wrote: post #115
jfoster wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point, who could bring a copyright claim? Well, considering the massive AI training effort hoovering everything up, seems it might be approximately everyone. Who would they be making the claim against? Well, considering the massive uptake of AI across the tech industry & beyond... approximately everyone. Yes, the model companies are in the middle, but it's getting to the point where it seems a bit doubtful th…

Different models have different licensing. Maybe open ai or anthropic doesn't claim ownership of output today, but some companies do. https://www.recraft.ai/docs/trust-and-security/ownership I imagine few can afford a legal battle... Free plan Images generated on the Free plan are public and owned by Recraft

Feels like those kinds of terms are moot in the big picture. Could they enforce it? Perhaps they can if a significant amount of the data produced is their IP, but who would they enforce it against? Consumers? Not much to be gained by going after them.

I can only think that they are hoping businesses might use the free plan and that they can sell them paid plans as part of an enforcement effort, but it doesn't seem like a very sustainable approach given the industry standard is to not claim ownership.

Re: Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"

#492

Post by brookst »

fortzi wrote: post #296
brookst wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. I do so much work with Claude on product requirements and architecture before a single line of code is written, and test coverage is extreme. If I need to understand a specific line of code it means I did something wrong in planning or in requirements for testing.

In my experience it’s impossible to foresee all the micro decisions that reality will demand. IMO it’s one reason to not use waterfall, which is very similar to what you described

No, waterfall is an engineering process.

What I’m describing is thorough documentation of requirements (acceptance criteria, if you like), and then encouraging Claude to be agile in execution.

As long as the outcome is well-defined, it is expected and normal to iterate on implementation.

Re: Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"

#493

Post by othmanosx »

embedding-shape wrote: post #480
othmanosx wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Give https://pyor.review a shot if you’re struggling with PR reviews on github.

Or, the SaaS-less approach, if a issue description is too messy/long, close it with "Please reopen with proper and concise description focusing on the issue" then lock it. Eventually people catch up and stop with the slop, just like in real life. But you have to be able to say "No ...", rather than just slapping another subscription on top of an already broken workflow.

If you're maintaining OSS, that's understandable, and you're free to say no, but in the corporate world, that's not realistic, AI is here to stay, if they don't harness it they would just be left behind. even if the AI gets good and stops writing sloppy stuff, it's still gonna write a lot of stuff, and you're gonna review it anyway, and take responsibility and ownership, and it's still gonna take you more time, because the bottleneck is now reviewing and understanding the code.

I agree that the workflow is broken, but only on the reviewing side, AI is a tool we use to make products just like any other we used in the past, punch cards, machine code, assembly, ...etc. AI is just the new tool that sits on top of the code as the next level, no one codes with punch cards, no one writes machine code anymore, we used to write the compiled language and don't care about how it's compiled or turned into machine code, same with AI, although it's not there yet and still requires babysitting by engineers, but that's our new job now, and we need to learn how to use it and make our lifes easier.

Re: Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"

#494

Post by Barrin92 »

newswasboring wrote: post #486
Barrin92 wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I am arguing that the atrophied skills are compensated by new skills we develop is there a lot of evidence for this? You can broadly put technology into two camps. Technologically that, as it becomes more powerful, demands more attention and skill from the user and just the opposite. A bow is more powerful than a stick but also more demanding to use. A car is more powerful than your feet but your population ends up…

You are equating governance failures with technological ones. At one hand you are asking me to prove how technology like writing or cars are useful but on the other hand you are bemoaning people's declining reading abilities. What even is your point?

that's not what I said at all. I pointed out that there are technologies that facilitate human development, and there are technologies that stunt and replace it, say a car.

What I was asking was is: If it's true as you say that we have replaced our atrophied skills with other ones, what are some of those, or technologies that facilitate them? Be that governmental, social or otherwise. Because we have a decline in reading, a decline in physical ability, a decline in sociality, to the topic of the thread a decline in the quality of software and engineers, but very little to show for it in my book.

Re: Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"

#495

Post by doublerabbit »

tredre3 wrote: post #448
doublerabbit wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens when the AI submitted code has been submitted by AI, Who's then responsible?

Whoever controls the AI, as per the article we're discussing. Debian isn't a free-for-all, they don't accept fly-by-night contributions, there needs to be a real and serious person behind every contribution.

Folk get's lazy, it'll will only be a matter of time. Ai controlling Ai, deep fakes are deep fakes.

Re: Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"

#496

Post by jayofdoom »

digitaltrees wrote: post #150
jayofdoom wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing. And that's the problem -- the issue isn't "should a contributor be able to use AI" it's quickly becoming "is this entire contributor an AI agent". Every actual-human who gets a bad first experience hurts the project. The contributors having to be suspicious of new people hurts the project. The whole thing just sucks, and I don't know how to fix it. I use claude-code, but the AI ecosystem and some of the auto…

What is a good project for a human to get human mentorship? Asking for a friend :)

I work on OpenStack, which is a project folks work on primarily due to sponsorship -- not many people who want to do security/stability work for a cloud "for the fun of it" :D.

So mentees I've worked with have usually come as part of a program, such as MLH[1] or Outreachy[2]. Other projects I've helped with mentoring have come from college programs or professors[3].

I have no idea how hard it is to get through the filters to get these opportunities; I know generally we ask them to only send us the best and that's worked out really well.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbsI8l-MaFA is an interview done on my podcast (by the other host, Tabatha) with CID, who works with me on OpenStack Ironic. A little over 2 years ago, he was an MLH fellow (https://fellowship.mlh.com/) working with me -- now he's a maintainer on OpenStack and working on my team. This is an exceptional outcome, but he's not the only person who has found success via MLH that I know.

[2] e.g. https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@...

[3] https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@...

Re: Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"

#497

Post by embedding-shape »

othmanosx wrote: post #493
embedding-shape wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, the SaaS-less approach, if a issue description is too messy/long, close it with "Please reopen with proper and concise description focusing on the issue" then lock it. Eventually people catch up and stop with the slop, just like in real life. But you have to be able to say "No ...", rather than just slapping another subscription on top of an already broken workflow.

If you're maintaining OSS, that's understandable, and you're free to say no, but in the corporate world, that's not realistic, AI is here to stay, if they don't harness it they would just be left behind. even if the AI gets good and stops writing sloppy stuff, it's still gonna write a lot of stuff, and you're gonna review it anyway, and take responsibility and ownership, and it's still gonna take you more time, becau…

> but in the corporate world

Sure, but that's irrelevant when someone says "I'm an OSS maintainer" and the context is explicitly about reviewing code submitted by others in a FOSS context, where you can say "No" and don't need any SaaS in order to do so.

Post reply on HN