Would it make sense to include the complete prompt that generated the code with the code?
Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators
61–70 of 427 posts
Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators
#62This 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.
I'd also worry that a language model is much more likely to introduce subtle logical errors, potentially ones which violate the hypervisor's security boundaries - and a user relying heavily on that model to write code for them will be much less prepared to detect those errors.
Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators
#63Open source and libre/free software are particularly vulnerable to a future where AI-generated code is ruled to be either infringing or public domain. In the former case, disentangling AI-edits from human edits could tie a project up in legal proceedings for years and projects don't have any funding to fight a copyright suit. Specifically, code that is AI-generated and subsequently modified or incorporated in the res…
I understand what experienced developers don't want random AI contributions from no-knowledge "developers" contributing to a project. In any situation, if a human is review AI code line by line that would tie up humans for years, even ignoring anything legally.
#1 There will be no verifiable way to prove something was AI generated beyond early models.
#2 Software projects that somehow are 100% human developed will not be competitive with AI assisted or written projects. The only room for debate on that is an apocalypse level scenario where humans fail to continue producing semiconductors or electricity.
#3 If a project successfully excludes AI contributions (not clear how other than controlling contributions to a tight group of anti-AI fanatics), it's just going to be cloned, and the clones will leave it in the dust. If the license permits forking then it could be forked too, but cloning and purging any potential legal issues might be preferred.
There still is a path for open source projects. It will be different. There's going to be much, much more software in the future and it's not going to be all junk (although 99% might.)
Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators
#64Interesting. Harder line than the LLVM one found at https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#ai-generated-cont... I'm very old man shouting at clouds about this stuff. I don't want to review code the author doesn't understand and I don't want to merge code neither of us understand.
When I use LLM for coding tasks, it's like "hey please translate this YAML to structs and extract any repeated patterns to re-used variables". It's possible to do this transform with deterministic tools, but AI will do a fine job in 30s and it's trivial to test the new output is identical to the prompt input.
My high-level work is absolutely impossible to delegate to AI, but AI really helps with tedious or low-stakes incidental tasks. The other day I asked Claude Code to wire up some graphs and outlier analysis for some database benchmark result CSVs. Something conceptually easy, but takes a fair bit of time to figure out libraries and get everything hooked up unless you're already an expert at csv processing.
Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators
#65This 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
Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a software is truly wide open source in the sense of “do whatever the fuck you want with this code, we don’t care”, then it has nothing to fear from AI.
Can't release someone else's proprietary source under a "do whatever the fuck you want" license and actually do whatever the fuck you want, without getting sued.
It’d be like trying to squeeze blood from a stone
Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Had someone higher up ask about something in my area of expertise. I said I didn't think is was possible, he followed up with a chatGPT conversation he had where it "gave him some ideas that we could use as an approach", as if that was some useful insight. This is the same people that think that "learning to code" is a translation issue they don't have time for as opposed to experience they don't have.
Imagine a boring dystopia where everyone is given hallucinated tasks from LLMs that may in some crazy way be feasible but aren't, and you can't argue that they're impossible without being fired since leadership lacks critical thinking.
Reminds me of the wonderful skit, The Expert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't want to review code the author doesn't understand This really bothers me. I've had people ask me to do some task except they get AI to provide instructions on how to do the task and send me the instructions, rather than saying "Hey can you please do X". It's insulting.
Had someone higher up ask about something in my area of expertise. I said I didn't think is was possible, he followed up with a chatGPT conversation he had where it "gave him some ideas that we could use as an approach", as if that was some useful insight. This is the same people that think that "learning to code" is a translation issue they don't have time for as opposed to experience they don't have.
> This is the same people that think that "learning to code" is a translation issue they don't have time for as opposed to experience they don't have.
This is very, very germane and a very quotable line. And these people have been around from long before LLMs appeared. These are the people who dash off an incomplete idea on Friday afternoon and expect to see a finished product in production by next Tuesday, latest. They have no self-awareness of how much context and disambiguation is needed to go from "idea in my head" to working, deterministic software that drives something like a process change in a business.
Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators
#69This is a "BlockBuster laughs Netflix out of the room" moment. I am a huge fan of QEMU and used it throughout my career. The maintainers have every right to govern their project as they see fit. But this is a lot of mental gymnastics to justify clinging to punchcards in a world where we now have magnetic tape and keyboards to do things faster. This tech didn't spawn weeks ago. Every major project has had at least two…
> This is a "BlockBuster laughs Netflix out of the room" moment I'm not sure that's the dunk you think it is. Good for Netflix for making money, but we're drowning in their empty slop content now and worse off for it.
[dead]
Re: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators
#70Open source and libre/free software are particularly vulnerable to a future where AI-generated code is ruled to be either infringing or public domain. In the former case, disentangling AI-edits from human edits could tie a project up in legal proceedings for years and projects don't have any funding to fight a copyright suit. Specifically, code that is AI-generated and subsequently modified or incorporated in the res…
I understand what experienced developers don't want random AI contributions from no-knowledge "developers" contributing to a project. In any situation, if a human is review AI code line by line that would tie up humans for years, even ignoring anything legally. #1 There will be no verifiable way to prove something was AI generated beyond early models. #2 Software projects that somehow are 100% human developed will no…
If AI can generate software so easily and which performs the expected functions, why do we even need to know that it did so? Isn't the future really just asking an AI for a result and getting that result? The AI would be writing all sorts of bespoke code to do the thing we ask, and then discard it immediately after. That is what seems more likely, and not 'so much software we have to figure out rights to'.