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

AI Usage Policy

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 293 posts

Re: AI Usage Policy

#51

Post by embedding-shape »

rikschennink wrote: post #40

> No AI-generated media is allowed (art, images, videos, audio, etc.). Text and code are the only acceptable AI-generated content, per the other rules in this policy. I find this distinction between media and text/code so interesting. To me it sounds like they think "text and code" are free from the controversy surrounding AI-generated media. But judging from how AI companies grabbed all the art, images, videos, and…

> To me it sounds like "text and code" are free from the controversy surrounding AI-generated media.

It really isn't, don't you recall the "protests" against Microsoft starting to use repositories hosted at GitHub for training their own coding models? Lots of articles and sentiments everywhere at the time.

Seems to have died down though, probably because most developers seemingly at this point use LLMs in some capacity today. Some just use it as a search engine replacement, others to compose snippets they copy-paste and others wholesale don't type code anymore, just instructions then review it.

I'm guessing Ghostty feels like if they'd ban generated text/code, they'd block almost all potential contributors. Not sure I agree with that personally, but I'm guessing that's their perspective.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#52

Post by xxs »

kleiba wrote: post #28
Version467 wrote: post #24

The biggest surprise to me with all this low-quality contribution spam is how little shame people apparently have. I have a handful of open source contributions. All of them are for small-ish projects and the complexity of my contributions are in the same ball-park as what I work on day-to-day. And even though I am relatively confident in my competency as a developer, these contributions are probably the most thoroug…

"Other people" might also just be junior devs - I have seen time and again how (over-)confident newbies can be in their code. (I remember one case where a student suspected a bug in the JVM when some Java code of his caused an error.) It's not necessarily maliciousness or laziness, it could simply be enthusiasm paired with lack of experience.

have found bugs in native JVM, usually it takes some effort, though. Printing the assembly is the easiest one. (I consider the bug in java.lang/util/io/etc. code not an interesting case)

Memory leaks and issues with the memory allocator are months long process to pin on the JVM...

In the early days (bug parade times), the bugs are a lot more common, nowadays -- I'd say it'd be an extreme naivete to consider JVM the culprit from the get-go.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#53

Post by Aeolun »

monegator wrote: post #46
Version467 wrote: post #24

The biggest surprise to me with all this low-quality contribution spam is how little shame people apparently have. I have a handful of open source contributions. All of them are for small-ish projects and the complexity of my contributions are in the same ball-park as what I work on day-to-day. And even though I am relatively confident in my competency as a developer, these contributions are probably the most thoroug…

> The biggest surprise to me with all this low-quality contribution spam is how little shame people apparently have. ever had a client second guess you by replying you a screenshot from GPT? ever asked anything in a public group only to have a complete moron replying you with a screenshot from GPT or - at least a bit of effor there - a copy/paste of the wall of text? no, people have no shame. they have a need for a l…

Random people don’t do this. Your boss however…

Re: AI Usage Policy

#54

Post by antirez »

TLDR don't be an asshole and produce good stuff. But I have the feeling that this is not the right direction for the future. Distrust the process: only trust the results.

Moreover this policy is strictly unenforceable because good AI use is indistinguishable from good manual coding. And sometimes even the reverse. I don't believe in coding policies where maintainers need to spot if AI is used or not. I believe in experienced maintainers that are able to tell if a change looks sensible or not.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#55

Post by Sharlin »

monegator wrote: post #46
Version467 wrote: post #24

The biggest surprise to me with all this low-quality contribution spam is how little shame people apparently have. I have a handful of open source contributions. All of them are for small-ish projects and the complexity of my contributions are in the same ball-park as what I work on day-to-day. And even though I am relatively confident in my competency as a developer, these contributions are probably the most thoroug…

> The biggest surprise to me with all this low-quality contribution spam is how little shame people apparently have. ever had a client second guess you by replying you a screenshot from GPT? ever asked anything in a public group only to have a complete moron replying you with a screenshot from GPT or - at least a bit of effor there - a copy/paste of the wall of text? no, people have no shame. they have a need for a l…

Problem is people seriously believe that whatever GPT tells them must be true, because… I don't even know. Just because it sounds self-confident and authoritative? Because computers are supposed to not make mistakes? Because talking computers in science fiction do not make mistakes like that? The fact that LLMs ended up having this particular failure mode, out of all possible failure modes, is incredibly unfortunate and detrimental to the society.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#56

Post by weinzierl »

Version467 wrote: post #24

The biggest surprise to me with all this low-quality contribution spam is how little shame people apparently have. I have a handful of open source contributions. All of them are for small-ish projects and the complexity of my contributions are in the same ball-park as what I work on day-to-day. And even though I am relatively confident in my competency as a developer, these contributions are probably the most thoroug…

"The biggest surprise to me with all this low-quality contribution spam is how little shame people apparently have."

And this is one half of why I think

"Bad AI drivers will be [..] ridiculed in public."

isn't a good clause. The other is that ridiculing others, not matter what, is just no decent behavior. Putting it as a rule in your policy document makes it only worse.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#57

Post by b3kart »

antirez wrote: post #54

TLDR don't be an asshole and produce good stuff. But I have the feeling that this is not the right direction for the future. Distrust the process: only trust the results. Moreover this policy is strictly unenforceable because good AI use is indistinguishable from good manual coding. And sometimes even the reverse. I don't believe in coding policies where maintainers need to spot if AI is used or not. I believe in exp…

This doesn't work in the age of AI where producing crappy results is much cheaper than verifying them. While this is the case, metadata will be important to understand if you should even bother verifying the results.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#58

Post by ionwake »

Version467 wrote: post #24

The biggest surprise to me with all this low-quality contribution spam is how little shame people apparently have. I have a handful of open source contributions. All of them are for small-ish projects and the complexity of my contributions are in the same ball-park as what I work on day-to-day. And even though I am relatively confident in my competency as a developer, these contributions are probably the most thoroug…

TBH Im not sure if this is a "growing up in a good area" vibe. But over the last decade or so I have had to slowly learn the people around me have no sense of shame. This wasnt their fault, but mine. Society has changed and if you don't adapt you'll end up confused and abused.

I am not saying one has to lose their shame, but at best, understand it.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#59

Post by weinzierl »

Lucasoato wrote: post #38

> Bad AI drivers will be banned and ridiculed in public. You've been warned. We love to help junior developers learn and grow, but if you're interested in that then don't use AI, and we'll help you. I'm sorry that bad AI drivers have ruined this for you. Finally an AI policy I can agree with :) jokes aside, it might sound a bit too agressive but it's also true that some people have really no shame into overloading yo…

I don't think ridicule is an effective threat for people with no shame to begin with.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#60

Post by 101008 »

nutjob2 wrote: post #23

A factor that people have not considered is that the copyright status of AI generated text is not settled law and precedent or new law may retroactively change the copyright status of a whole project. Maybe a bit unlikely, but still an issue no one is really considering. There has been a single ruling (I think) that AI generated code is uncopyrightable. There has been at least one affirmative fair use ruling. Both of…

I never thought of this, you are right. What happens if, let's say, AI generated text/code is "ilegal"? Especially what happens with all the companies that have been using it for their products? Do they need to rollback? It should be a shit show but super interesting to see it unfold...
Post reply on HN