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

91–100 of 293 posts

Re: AI Usage Policy

#91

Post by Cthulhu_ »

pousada wrote: post #79
ionwake wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To add, I don't know if this is a cultural, personal, or other thing but nowadays even if people get shamed for whatever they do, they see it more as a challenge, and it makes them rebel even harder against what is perceived to be old fashioned or whatever.

Basically teenagers. But it feels like the rebellious teenager phase lasts longer nowadays. Zero evidence besides vibes and anecdotes, but still.

Or maybe it's me that's getting old?

Re: AI Usage Policy

#92

Post by Cthulhu_ »

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".

Sounds like everyone's got some main character syndrome, the cure for that is to be a meaningless cog in the enterprise wheels for a while. But then I suspect a lot of open source contributions are done exactly by those people - they don't really matter in their day job, but in open source they can Make A Difference.

Of course, the vast majority of OS work is the same cog-in-a-machine work, and with low effort AI assisted contributions, the non-hero-coding work becomes more prevalent than ever.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#93

Post by layer8 »

KolmogorovComp wrote: post #72

A good PR using IA should be impossible to distinguish from a non-AI one.

The problem is that most aren’t good, and bad ones can take a lot of effort to distinguish, if they look plausible on the surface. So the potentially good ones aren’t worth all the bad ones.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#94

Post by cess11 »

anon_anon12 wrote: post #90
Sharlin wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

Re: AI Usage Policy

#95

Post by Sharlin »

pousada wrote: post #74
Sharlin wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sure, but this failure mode is not that. "AI will malfunction and doom us all" is pretty far from "AI will malfunction by sometimes confabulating stuff".

Re: AI Usage Policy

#97

Post by cess11 »

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…

Some take that in consideration, I did when I until recently was in a CTO role, and I've come across companies that take compliance seriously and have decided against such code synthesis due to the unclear legal status.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#99

Post by IgorPartola »

cess11 wrote: post #94
anon_anon12 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

To quote Luke Skywalker: Amazing. Every word of what you just said is wrong.

Re: AI Usage Policy

#100

Post by the_af »

cess11 wrote: post #94
anon_anon12 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

I get what you're saying but I think it's wrong (I also think it's wrong when people say "well, people used to complain about calculators...").

An LLM chatbot is not like querying a database. Postgres doesn't have a human-like interface. Querying SQL is highly technical, when you get nonsensical results out of it (which is most often than not) you immediately suspect the JOIN you wrote or whatever. There's no "confident vibe" in results spat out by the DB engine.

Interacting with a chat bot is highly non-technical. The chat bot seems to many people like a highly competent person-like robot that knows everything, and it knows it with a high degree of confidence too.

So it makes sense to talk about "hallucinations", even though it's a flawed analogy.

I think the mistake people make when interacting with LLMs is similar to what they do when they read/watch the news: "well, they said so on the news, so it must be true."

Post reply on HN