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

Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

gitlab.redox-os.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 504 posts

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#71

Post by eyk19 »

defmacr0 wrote: post #62
eyk19 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the pattern here is donate compute, not code. If agents are writing most of the software anyway, why deal with the overhead of reviewing other people's PRs? You're basically reviewing someone else's agent output when you could just run your own. Maintainers could just accept feature requests, point their own agents at them using donated compute, and skip the whole review dance. You get code that actually…

So your proposed solution to AI slop PRs is to "donate" compute, so the maintainers can waste their time by generating the AI slop themselves?

The point isn't that agent output is magically better; it's that reviewing your own agent's output is way cheaper (intellectually) than reviewing a stranger's, because you've written the plan by yourself. And 'slop' is mostly what you get when you don't have a clear plan to verify against. Maintainers writing detailed specs for their own agents is a very different thing from someone vibe coding a feature request

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#73

Post by [deleted] »

lifis wrote: post #25
duskdozer wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Not sure how they can expect to make a viable full OS without massive use of LLMs, so this makes no sense. Why not?

Because it takes a massive amount of developer work (perhaps more than anything else), and it's very unlikely they either have the ability to attract enough human developers to be able to do it without LLM assistance. Not to mention that even finding good developers willing to develop without AI (a significant handicap, even more so for coding things like an OS that are well represented in LLM training) seems difficu…

[deleted]

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#74

Post by sh4zb0t »

lifis wrote: post #16

Not sure how they can expect to make a viable full OS without massive use of LLMs, so this makes no sense. What makes sense if that of course any LLM-generated code must be reviewed by a good programmer and must be correct and well written, and the AI usage must be precisely disclosed. What they should ban is people posting AI-generated code without mentioning it or replying "I don't know, the AI did it like that" to…

[flagged]

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#75

Post by ptnpzwqd »

ketzu wrote: post #49
ptnpzwqd wrote: post #6

I think this is a reasonable decision (although maybe increasingly insufficient). It doesn't really matter what your stance on AI is, the problem is the increased review burden on OSS maintainers. In the past, the code itself was a sort of proof of effort - you would need to invest some time and effort on your PRs, otherwise they would be easily dismissed at a glance. That is no longer the case, as LLMs can quickly g…

> Even if we assume LLMs would consistently generate good enough quality code, code submitted by someone untrusted would still need detailed review for many reasons - so even in that case it would like be faster for the maintainers to just use the tools themselves, rather than reviewing someone else's use of the same tools. Wouldn't an agent run by a maintainer require the same scrutiny? An agent is imo "someone else…

Yes, I agree. It was just me playing with a hypothetical (but in my view not imminent) future where vibe-coding without review would somehow be good enough.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#76

Post by nananana9 »

algoth1 wrote: post #72

What would constitute "clearly llm generated" though

  if (foo == true) { // checking foo is true (rocketship emoji)
    20 lines of code;
  } else {
    the same 20 lines of code with one boolean changed in the middle;
  }
Description:

(markdown header) Summary (nerd emoji):

This PR fixes a non-existent issue by adding an *if statement** that checks if a variable is true. This has the following benefits:

  - Improves performance (rocketship emoji)
  - Increases code maintainability (rising bar chart emoji)
  - Helps prevent future bugs (detective emoji)
(markdown header) Conclusion:

This PR does not just improve performance, it fundamentally reshapes how we approach performance considerations. This is not just design --- it's architecture. Simple, succinct, yet powerful.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#78

Post by eloisius »

eyk19 wrote: post #37
ptnpzwqd wrote: post #6

I think this is a reasonable decision (although maybe increasingly insufficient). It doesn't really matter what your stance on AI is, the problem is the increased review burden on OSS maintainers. In the past, the code itself was a sort of proof of effort - you would need to invest some time and effort on your PRs, otherwise they would be easily dismissed at a glance. That is no longer the case, as LLMs can quickly g…

I feel like the pattern here is donate compute, not code. If agents are writing most of the software anyway, why deal with the overhead of reviewing other people's PRs? You're basically reviewing someone else's agent output when you could just run your own. Maintainers could just accept feature requests, point their own agents at them using donated compute, and skip the whole review dance. You get code that actually…

Or even more efficient: the model we already have. Donate money and let the maintainer decide whether to convert it into tokens or mash the keys themself.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#79

Post by layer8 »

eyk19 wrote: post #71
defmacr0 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your proposed solution to AI slop PRs is to "donate" compute, so the maintainers can waste their time by generating the AI slop themselves?

The point isn't that agent output is magically better; it's that reviewing your own agent's output is way cheaper (intellectually) than reviewing a stranger's, because you've written the plan by yourself. And 'slop' is mostly what you get when you don't have a clear plan to verify against. Maintainers writing detailed specs for their own agents is a very different thing from someone vibe coding a feature request

You’re assuming that maintainers have a desire to use agentic coding in the first place.

Secondly, it would seem that such contributions would contribute little value, if the maintainers have to write up the detailed plans by themselves, basically have to do all the work to implement the change by themselves.

Re: Redox OS has adopted a Certificate of Origin policy and a strict no-LLM policy

#80

Post by menaerus »

Let someone from the Redox team go read [1], [2], and [3]. If they still insist on keeping their position then ... well. The industry is being redefined as we speak and everyone doing the push-back are pushing against themselves really.

[1] https://www.datadoghq.com/blog/ai/harness-first-agents/

[2] https://www.datadoghq.com/blog/ai/fully-autonomous-optimizat...

[3] https://www.datadoghq.com/blog/engineering/self-optimizing-s...

P.S. I know this will be downvoted to death but I'll leave it here anyway for folks who want to keep their eyes wide open.

Post reply on HN