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

81–90 of 293 posts

Re: AI Usage Policy

#81

Post by positive-spite »

monegator wrote: post #46
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 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…

Didn't happen to me yet.

I'm not looking forward to it...

Re: AI Usage Policy

#82

Post by epaga »

I really like the phrase "bad AI drivers"...AI is a tool, and the stupid drive-by pull requests just mean you're being inconsiderate and unhelpful in your usage of the tool, similar to how "bad drivers" are a nightmare to encounter on a highway...so stop it or you'll end up on the dashcam subreddit of programming.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#83

Post by tpxl »

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 agree with you that generative AI is clearly not fair use.

However, at this point, the economic impact of trying to de tangle this mess would be so large, the courts likely won't do anything about it. You and I don't get to infringe on copyright; Microsoft, Facebook and Google sure do though.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#84

Post by latentsea »

toyg wrote: post #71
Ronsenshi wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ha…

I think of it like people just have crappy prompt adherence. It makes more sense that way.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#85

Post by Cthulhu_ »

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 don't remember exactly who said it, but at one point I read a good take - people trust these chatbots because there's big companies and billions behind them, surely big companies test and verify their stuff thoroughly?

But (as someone else described), GPTs and other current-day LLMs are probabilistic. But 99% of what they produce seems feasible enough.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#86

Post by Ronsenshi »

latentsea wrote: post #84
toyg wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ha…

I think of it like people just have crappy prompt adherence. It makes more sense that way.

With AI at least you can wipe the context and reapply system prompt.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#87

Post by pera »

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…

Last year I had to deal with a contractor who sincerely believed that a very popular library had some issue because it was erroring when parsing a chatgpt generated json... I'm still shocked, this is seriously scary

Re: AI Usage Policy

#88

Post by lm28469 »

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…

Lots of people cosplay as developers, and "contributing" to open source is a box they must check. It's like they go through the moves without understanding they're doing the opposite of what they should be doing. Same with having a tech blog, they don't understand that the end goal is not "having a blog" but "producing and sharing quality content"

Re: AI Usage Policy

#89

Post by latexr »

christoph-heiss wrote: post #48
direwolf20 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This only matters if you get sued for copyright violation, though.

No? Licenses still apply even if you _don't_ get sued?

Do they? Isn’t the application of the license its enforcement?

It’s illegal to commit fraud or murder, but if you do it and suffer no consequences (perhaps you even get pardoned by your president), does it matter that it was illegal? Laws are as strong as their enforcement.

For a less grim and more explicit example, Apple has a policy on the iOS App Store that apps may not use notifications to advertise. Yet it happens all the time, especially from big players like Uber. Apple themselves have done it too. So if you’re a bad actor and disrespectful to your users, does it matter that the rule exists?

Re: AI Usage Policy

#90

Post by anon_anon12 »

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…

People's trust on LLM imo stems from the lack of awareness of AI hallucinating. Hallucination benchmarks are often hidden or talked about hastily in marketing videos.
Post reply on HN