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

We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

samsaffron.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 161 posts

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#91

Post by Larrikin »

catigula wrote: post #72
softwaredoug wrote: post #11

Anyone else feel like we're cresting the LLM coding hype curve? Like a recognition that there's value there, but we're passing the frothing-at-the-mouth stage of replacing all software engineers?

It's been less than a year and agents have gone from patently useless to very useful if used well.

Useful if used well as a thought has gone from meaning a replace all developers machine to a fresh out of college junior with perfect memory bot to a will save a little typing if you type out all of your thoughts and baby sit it text box.

I get value from it everyday like a lawyer gets value from LexisNexis. I look forward to the vibe coded slop era like a real lawyer looks forward to a defendant with no actual legal training that obviously did it using LexisNexis.

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#92

Post by softskunk »

Toby1VC wrote: post #83
miningape wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, if you churn out a bad change - AI or not - I'm going to be more careful with reviewing what you put out*. This is judgement, and it is a good thing - it helps us prioritise what is worth doing, and how much time should be spent on it. If your attitude is consistently "idk the AI made it" and you refuse to review it yourself. For 1, I am insulted that you think I should pick up your slack, and 2, I'm going to ju…

This is not judgment as much as it is programming a community and is perpetuating the opposite of correct judgment since it's inserting an emotion and opinion into a collective mind and discourse (the headline alone which might be all a lot of people scan and a tone-setter). It's going to cause reactions like the one you just had at many points in time used against people that decide to use modern tools. If Discurse…

What exactly is the problem with having an opinion? People are allowed to have opinions. People working in a field are allowed and even expected to have opinions on that field’s current state and goings-on.

Your opinion, if I had to guess, is that generative “AI” can be good and useful. My opinion is that it’s an insult to humanity that causes considerable harm and should not be used. These are both valid opinions to have, although they disagree with each other.

Don’t fall into the trap of “I’m objectively correct, everyone else just has opinions”.

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#93

Post by mwigdahl »

jandrese wrote: post #52
softwaredoug wrote: post #11

Anyone else feel like we're cresting the LLM coding hype curve? Like a recognition that there's value there, but we're passing the frothing-at-the-mouth stage of replacing all software engineers?

When people talk about the “AI bubble popping” this is what they mean. It is clear that AI will remain useful, but the “singularity is nigh” hype is faltering and the company valuations based on perpetual exponential improvement are just not realistic. Worse, the marginal improvements are coming at ever higher resource requirements with each generation, which puts a soft cap on how good an AI can be and still be econ…

What are you basing that on? Haiku 4.5 just came out and beats Sonnet 4 at a third the cost.

GPT-5 and GPT-5-codex are significantly cheaper than the o-series full models from OpenAI, but outperform them.

I won't get into whether the improvements we're seeing are marginal or not, but whether or not that's the case, these examples clearly show you can get improved performance with decreasing resource cost as techniques advance.

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#95

Post by softskunk »

Toby1VC wrote: post #65
softskunk wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s nothing wrong with judgment. Judging someone’s character based on whether they use generative “AI” is a valid practice. You may not like being judged, but that’s another matter entirely.

>There’s nothing wrong with judgment. Judging someone’s character based on whether they use generative “AI” is a valid practice. You may not like being judged, but that’s another matter entirely. You and I know that using AI is a metric to consider when judging ability and quality. The difference is that it's not judgment but a broadcast, announcement. In this case a snotty one from Discourse. I mention that it linge…

So people will be more likely to think twice before using Cursor, Copilot et al? Good. I think they should.

Your comparison to torture and sabotage is unfounded to the point of being simply bizarre.

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#96

Post by gordonhart »

> As engineers it is our role to properly label our changes.

I've found myself wanting line-level blame for LLMs. If my teammate committed something that was written directly by Claude Code, it's more useful to me to know that than to have the blame assigned to the human through the squash+merge PR process.

Ultimately somebody needs to be on the hook. But if my teammate doesn't understand it any better than I do, I'd rather that be explicit and avoid the dance of "you committed it, therefore you own it," which is better in principle than in practice IMO.

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#97

Post by jcgrillo »

anon3242 wrote: post #63
jcgrillo wrote: post #41

> Some go so far as to say “AI not welcome here” find another project. This feels extremely counterproductive and fundamentally unenforceable to me. But it's trivially enforceable. Accept PRs from unverified contributors, look at them for inspiration if you like, but don't ever merge one . It's probably not a satisfying answer, but if you want or need to ensure your project hasn't been infected by AI generated code y…

This is sad. The barrier of entry will be raised extremely high, maybe even requiring some real world personal connections to the maintainer.

Real world personal connections are how we establish trust. At some point you have to be able to trust the people you're collaborating with.

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#98

Post by catigula »

Larrikin wrote: post #91
catigula wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been less than a year and agents have gone from patently useless to very useful if used well.

Useful if used well as a thought has gone from meaning a replace all developers machine to a fresh out of college junior with perfect memory bot to a will save a little typing if you type out all of your thoughts and baby sit it text box. I get value from it everyday like a lawyer gets value from LexisNexis. I look forward to the vibe coded slop era like a real lawyer looks forward to a defendant with no actual legal…

The trajectory is a replace all developers trajectory, you're just in the middle of the curve wondering why you're not at the end of it.

The funny thing is you're clearly within the hyperbolic pattern that I've described. It could plateau, but denying that you're there is incorrect.

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#99

Post by stevenhubertron »

jsty wrote: post #74
andy99 wrote: post #69

This is a problem everywhere now, and not just in code. It now takes zero effort to produce something, whether code or a work plan or “deep research” and then lob it over the fence, expecting people to review and act upon it. It’s an extension of the asymmetric bullshit principle IMO, and I think now all workplaces / projects need norms about this.

It feels like reputation / identity are about to become far more critical in determining whether your contribution, of whatever form, even gets considered.

Perhaps it's time for Klout to rise from the ashes?

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#100

Post by dragontamer »

jermaustin1 wrote: post #62
softwaredoug wrote: post #11

Anyone else feel like we're cresting the LLM coding hype curve? Like a recognition that there's value there, but we're passing the frothing-at-the-mouth stage of replacing all software engineers?

I've been skeptical about LLMs being able to replace humans in their current state (which has gotten marginally better in the last 18 months), but let us not forget that GPT-3.5 (the first truly useful LLM) was only 3 years ago. We aren't even 10 years out from the initial papers about GPTs.

> was only 3 years ago

That's one way of looking at it.

Another way to look at it is GPT3.5 was $600,000,000,000 ago.

Today's AIs are better, but are they $600B better? Does it feel like that investment was sound? And if not, how much slower will future investments be?

Post reply on HN