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

Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy

jellyfin.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 112 posts

Re: Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy

#71

Post by peyton »

VariousPrograms wrote: post #69

I know this is nothing new, but it's insane that we need policies like "When talking to us you have to use human words, not copy pasted LLM output" and "You must understand the code you're committing." When I was young, I used to think I'd be open minded to changing times and never be curmudgeonly, but I get into one "conversation" where someone responds with ChatGPT, and I am officially a curmudgeon.

They’ll self-sort pretty quickly. The ChatGPT people will talk to the ChatGPT people and be happy about it. I think it’ll work out.

Re: Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy

#72

Post by cedmans »

VariousPrograms wrote: post #69

I know this is nothing new, but it's insane that we need policies like "When talking to us you have to use human words, not copy pasted LLM output" and "You must understand the code you're committing." When I was young, I used to think I'd be open minded to changing times and never be curmudgeonly, but I get into one "conversation" where someone responds with ChatGPT, and I am officially a curmudgeon.

Brazen usage of LLM output is a disrespect to the target audience to begin with. If I'm being expected to employ the mental capital needed to understand the context and content of your writings, I at the very least expect that you did the same when actually authoring it.

Re: Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy

#73

Post by yrds96 »

FanaHOVA wrote: post #11

People can write horrible PRs manually just as well as they do with AI (see Hacktoberfest drama, etc). "LLM Code Contributions to Official Projects" would read exactly the same if it just said "Code Contributions to Official Projects": Write concise PRs, test your code, explain your changes and handle review feedback. None of this is different whether the code is written manually or with an LLM. Just looks like a lon…

The effort to write shitty code is way less when you are using IA, you can create a 1k lines PR with a single prompt. This policy is important because no one is saying "we hate AI" but instead advises developers to use it with responsibility. This is coming in time since many people are using it without understanding problems and not being accountable regarding the contributions.

Re: Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy

#74

Post by willio58 »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #7
hamdingers wrote: post #2

> LLM output is expressly prohibited for any direct communication I would like to see this more. As a heavy user of LLMs I still write 100% of my own communication. Do not send me something an LLM wrote, if I wanted to read LLM outputs, I would ask an LLM.

Yeah I use LLMs to show me how to shorten my emails because I can type for days. It helps a lot for when I feel like I just need a short concise email but I still write it all myself.

Yeah I do the same. I’ve seen great results from writing out a large slack, copying it into ChatGPT and saying “write this more succinctly”.

Then, of course, I review the output and make some manual edits here and there.

That last thing is the key in both written communication and in code, you HAVE to review it and make manual edits if needed.

Re: Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy

#75

Post by solid_fuel »

cedmans wrote: post #72
VariousPrograms wrote: post #69

I know this is nothing new, but it's insane that we need policies like "When talking to us you have to use human words, not copy pasted LLM output" and "You must understand the code you're committing." When I was young, I used to think I'd be open minded to changing times and never be curmudgeonly, but I get into one "conversation" where someone responds with ChatGPT, and I am officially a curmudgeon.

Brazen usage of LLM output is a disrespect to the target audience to begin with. If I'm being expected to employ the mental capital needed to understand the context and content of your writings, I at the very least expect that you did the same when actually authoring it.

It also feels like using one of those cereal encoder wheels, to some degree. If someone sends me 10 paragraphs of output from chatGPT, and they only wrote a sentence to prompt it, then the output is really just a re-encoding of the information in the original prompt.

Quite literally - if they sent me the text of the prompt I could obtain the same output, so the output is just a more verbose way of stating the prompt.

I find it really disrespectful to talk to people through an LLM like that.

Re: Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy

#76

Post by fn-mote »

pixl97 wrote: post #63
Gigachad wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The open for anyone PR model might be at risk now. How can maintainers be expected to review unlimited slop coming in. I can see a lot of open source just giving up on allowing community contribution. Or maybe only allowing trusted members to contribute after they have demonstrated more than passing interest in the project.

It has been at risk for a long time, now it is in doubt. Think of a scenario like Attacker floods you with tons of AI slop to make your overloaded and at risk of making mistakes. These entries should have just enough basis in reality to avoid summary rejection. Then the attacker puts in useful batch of code that fixes issues and injects a tricky security flaw. If there's not a lot going on the second part is hard to…

That's not going to be the scenario (IMO). After the AI slop comes in, everything in the queue is going to be triaged as garbage to clear it.

Re: Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy

#77

Post by pixl97 »

fn-mote wrote: post #76
pixl97 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has been at risk for a long time, now it is in doubt. Think of a scenario like Attacker floods you with tons of AI slop to make your overloaded and at risk of making mistakes. These entries should have just enough basis in reality to avoid summary rejection. Then the attacker puts in useful batch of code that fixes issues and injects a tricky security flaw. If there's not a lot going on the second part is hard to…

That's not going to be the scenario (IMO). After the AI slop comes in, everything in the queue is going to be triaged as garbage to clear it.

The attacker never has to stop.

Re: Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy

#78

Post by rickz0rz »

What's the grief with squashing commits? I do it all the time when I'm working on stuff so that I don't have to expose people to my internal testing. So long as the commit(s) look fine at the end of the day, I don't see what the deal is there.

Re: Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy

#79

Post by [deleted] »

SchemaLoad wrote: post #35
adastra22 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m glad they have a carve out for using LLMs to translate to, or fix up English communications. LLMs are a great accessibility tool that is making open source development truly global. Translation and grammar fix up is something LLMs are very, very good at! But that is translation, not “please generate a pull request message for these changes.”

"I just used it to clean up my writing" seems to be the usual excuse when someone has generated the entire thing and copy pasted it in. No one believes it and it's blatantly obvious every time someone does this.

[deleted]

Re: Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy

#80

Post by fn-mote »

lifetimerubyist wrote: post #4

> Violating this rule will result in closure/deletion of the offending item(s). Should just be an instant perma-ban (along with closure, obviously).

> Should just be an instant perma-ban (along with closure, obviously).

This is the internet. Real offenders will just submit the next PR with a new alt account.

Post reply on HN