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

71–80 of 293 posts

Re: AI Usage Policy

#71

Post by toyg »

Ronsenshi wrote: post #34
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…

It's good to regularly see such policies and discussions around them to remind me how staggeringly shameless some people could be and how many of such people out there. Interacting mostly with my peers, friends, acquaintances I tend to forget that they don't represent average population and after some time I start to assume all people are reasonable and act in good faith.

Yep, this. You can just look at the state of FOSS licensing across GitHub to see it in action: licenses are routinely stripped or changed to remove the original developers, even on trivial items, even on forked projects where the action is easily visible, even on licenses that allow for literally everything else. State "You can do everything except this" and loads of people will still actively do it, because they have no shame (or because they enjoy breaking someone else's rules? Because it gives them a power trip? Who knows).

Re: AI Usage Policy

#73

Post by stephantul »

senko wrote: post #64

On a tangent: the origin of the problems with low-quality drive-by requests is github's social nature. That might have been great when GitHub started, but nowadays many use it as portfolio padding and/or social proof. "This person contributed to a lot of projects" heuristic for "they're a good and passionate developer" means people will increasingly game this using low-quality submissions. This has been happening for…

Your point about rereading without ai makes so much sense.

The economics of it have changed, human nature hasn’t. Before 2023 (?) people also submitted garbage PRs just to be able to add “contributed to X” to their CV. It’s just become a lot cheaper.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#74

Post by pousada »

Sharlin wrote: post #55
monegator wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I think in science fiction it’s one of the most common themes for the talking computer to be utterly horribly wrong, often resulting in complete annihilation of all life on earth.

Unless I have been reading very different science fiction I think it’s definitely not that.

I think it’s more the confidence and seeming plausibility of LLM answers

Re: AI Usage Policy

#75

Post by pil0u »

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 major companies that made available the very tools they use to create this spam code, applied the exact same ethics.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#76

Post by rikschennink »

embedding-shape wrote: post #51
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 capaci…

Right, that's what I'm thinking too (I'll update my statement a bit to make that more clear), but I constantly hear this perspective that it's all good for text and code but when it's media, then it's suddenly problematic. It's equally problematic for text and code.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#77

Post by latexr »

Etheryte wrote: post #25
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…

I worked for a major open-source company for half a decade. Everyone thinks their contribution is a gift and you should be grateful. To quote Bo Burnham, "you think your dick is a gift, I promise it's not".

> To quote Bo Burnham, "you think your dick is a gift, I promise it's not".

For those curious:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llGvsgN17CQ

Re: AI Usage Policy

#78

Post by guerrilla »

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 apparently don't have this feeling at all.

I think this is interesting too. I've noticed the difference in dating/hook-up contexts. The people you're talking about also end up getting laid more but that group also has a very large intersection with sex pests and other shitty people. The thing they have in common though is that they just don't care what other people think about them. That leads some of them to be successful if they are otherwise good people... or to become borderline or actual crininals if not. I find it fascinating actually, like how does this difference come about and can it actually be changed or is it something we get early in life or from the genetic lottery.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#79

Post by pousada »

ionwake wrote: post #58
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.

Like with all things in life shame is best in moderation.

Too little or too much shame can lead to issue.

Problem is no one tells you what too little or too much actually is and there are many different situations where you need to figure it out on your own.

So I think sometimes people just get it wrong but ultimately everyone tries their best. Truly malicious shameless people are extremely rare in my experience.

For the topic at hand I think a lot of these “shameless” contributions come from kids

Re: AI Usage Policy

#80

Post by Sytten »

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 think the usage is so widespread now that the law will adapt to customs. It is untenable now to say code generated is uncopyrightable IMO. Maybe copyright as is defined right now is not enough, but then the legislation will change it. There is enough pressure on them from the business community to do so.
Post reply on HN