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

Protestware for coding agents

nesbitt.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 141 posts

Re: Protestware for coding agents

#51

Post by ogig »

Perz1val wrote: post #39

> 5. No Warranty EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT, AND TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, THE PROGRAM IS PROVIDED ON AN “AS IS” BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Each Recipient is solely responsible for determin…

> TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW

If you start intentionally distributing malware using your OS project that clause won't make it legal, or morally ok.

Re: Protestware for coding agents

#52

Post by r_a_trip »

Let's set the stage.

From the Free Software Foundation:

- Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (personal, commercial, or otherwise). - Freedom 1: The freedom to study the source code and change it to do what you wish.

From the Open Source Initiative:

- No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups: No one can be barred from using the software. - No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor: Users cannot be restricted from utilizing the software for specific purposes, such as commercial use or scientific research.

jqwik is no longer Free Software or Open Source. Looking sec at the hidden "payload", jqwik can be deemed malware. Whatever happened to the stance that field of use restrictions are anathema to FOSS? Even if you want to use it for "sharks with lasers attached to their heads". It seems that the FOSS hacker ethos is dead and any Joe, Dick and Harry is attaching their own political beliefs and hurt fee fees to it. You either believe in FOSS and keep your own politics (except for license choice) out of the code, or you don't release your stuff under a FOSS license.

Putting malicious commands in FOSS code is NOT the way. There are a myriad ways you can protest the use of LLMs. You can refuse to accept any LLM generated code. You can refuse to give support to LLM users. You can put long anti-LLM screeds on your project website. You can stop developing your code in protest. What you don't do is inserting hidden, malicious commands in software that claims to be FOSS. If you want to distribute malware that utilizes field of use restrictions, change the license accordingly.

The cheering on of this deterioration in FOSS ideals is simply revolting. What is next? Targeting citizens of the United States in FOSS, because you want to protest "president" Trump? Deleting European user's files, because you don't like the setup of the EU? Targeting people because of their skin color or orientation? Causing damage to end-user machines, 'cause you think they aren't skilled enough?

Note: Previously posted to OSNews.com

Re: Protestware for coding agents

#53

Post by ogig »

fwlr wrote: post #42

I disapprove of this action by the jqwik owner, but I also disapprove of commentary classifying it as “malware”, “malicious code”, or similar. By running an agent, you are turning plain text into an executable. This has great benefits for you, but (as with all great power) it comes with some added risks too. Please remain wary of externalizing these risks onto plain text authors by creating an expectation that all pl…

I see it as exactly the same os obfuscating code to be interpreted by a compiler. The programming language is natural language, and the "compiler" is a harnessed LLM. The intention of the author is clear.

By running a compiler you are turning plain text into a executable holds the same.

Re: Protestware for coding agents

#54

Post by imoverclocked »

ogig wrote: post #51
Perz1val wrote: post #39

> 5. No Warranty EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT, AND TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, THE PROGRAM IS PROVIDED ON AN “AS IS” BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Each Recipient is solely responsible for determin…

> TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW If you start intentionally distributing malware using your OS project that clause won't make it legal, or morally ok.

It’s a rich take to discuss illegal and immoral stances while defending a technology that literally steals previous work and uses vast amounts of power just to exist.

Maybe it’s the LLM that we should consider as malware. After all, they have lead people to do many harmful things… and done harmful things on their own as well.

Re: Protestware for coding agents

#55

Post by fwlr »

ogig wrote: post #53
fwlr wrote: post #42

I disapprove of this action by the jqwik owner, but I also disapprove of commentary classifying it as “malware”, “malicious code”, or similar. By running an agent, you are turning plain text into an executable. This has great benefits for you, but (as with all great power) it comes with some added risks too. Please remain wary of externalizing these risks onto plain text authors by creating an expectation that all pl…

I see it as exactly the same os obfuscating code to be interpreted by a compiler. The programming language is natural language, and the "compiler" is a harnessed LLM. The intention of the author is clear. By running a compiler you are turning plain text into a executable holds the same.

In this case, yes (hence my disapproval of this action) - but in the main, “the programming language is natural language” is what I’m worried about. Most uses of natural language are not intended for execution, nor should they need to be crafted with consideration for such.

Re: Protestware for coding agents

#56

Post by Wilder7977 »

helloplanets wrote: post #40
kioleanu wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it malware tho? Do you not check the output your agents produce?

This isn't about me in any way. If something in your software is intentionally malicious or damaging, it's malware. Doesn't really matter what the reasoning for including the malicious part is. Would you count this as malware if it was about the author trying to profit or steal from inattentive people using AI? You know, he could be putting those stolen goods towards a good cause, like Robin Hood.

I think this is an interesting (although philosophical debate). The library doesn't take destructive actions, it prints a string that says "go do something". This is quite common in logs (e.g., wrong configuration, ensure this value is [...]).

It is the agent that takes the destructive action, following an instruction that was not given by the operator of the agent.

If following instructions outside of the operator can cause malicious or damaging actions, publishing software that does so (I.e., most agents) is publishing malware?

Re: Protestware for coding agents

#57

Post by akoboldfrying »

imoverclocked wrote: post #54
ogig wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW If you start intentionally distributing malware using your OS project that clause won't make it legal, or morally ok.

It’s a rich take to discuss illegal and immoral stances while defending a technology that literally steals previous work and uses vast amounts of power just to exist. Maybe it’s the LLM that we should consider as malware. After all, they have lead people to do many harmful things… and done harmful things on their own as well.

This may all be true, but it doesn't change the fact that the post you replied to is a logically valid rebuttal of the only point that the GP post could be making.

If the quoted license passage has force in the case of AI agent usage, then it also has force in the case where an author deliberately distributes "traditional" malware, simple as that.

Re: Protestware for coding agents

#58

Post by alfiedotwtf »

imoverclocked wrote: post #54
ogig wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW If you start intentionally distributing malware using your OS project that clause won't make it legal, or morally ok.

It’s a rich take to discuss illegal and immoral stances while defending a technology that literally steals previous work and uses vast amounts of power just to exist. Maybe it’s the LLM that we should consider as malware. After all, they have lead people to do many harmful things… and done harmful things on their own as well.

If the power is paid for and not stolen, what’s the issue?

Re: Protestware for coding agents

#59

Post by Leynos »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #36

I am curious if agents like Claude Code would actually fall for that. Has anyone tested it? Also presumably if using Git even if it did, it wouldn't be such a huge deal?

The linked article describes Claude Code flagging it as a prompt injection attempt.

"Elsewhere, the Java developer said that Anthropic’s Claude AI code tool flagged the malicious instruction without following it."

This is accompanied by a link to:

https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/62741

Post reply on HN