Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy • Hacker News Board

Re: Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy

#91

Post by heavyset_go » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 3:14 AM UTC

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.

I hope it becomes as accepted as it is to stick cameras in random people's faces: generally seen as rude, and bad actors who do it anyway are desperate and considered as such.

I am capable of copying and pasting shit into an LLM, do not give me its output and don't insult me by pretending the output is your own work.

Re: Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy

#92

Post by al_borland » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 3:31 AM UTC

solid_fuel wrote: post #75

cedmans wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Generally speaking, a person can write a long rambling email without much effort. It takes some work to distill it down to keep the meaning without the verbosity.

If anything, AI should be used to take the long rambling email and send off the shorter distilled version.

Re: Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy

#93

Post by Sytten » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 4:27 AM UTC

The key to get better quality AI PR is to add high quality Agents.md file to tell the LLM what are the patterns, conventions, etc.

We do that internally and I cant overstate how much better the output is even with small prompts.

IMO things like "dont put abusive comments" as a policy is better in that file, you will never see comment again instead of fighting with dozen of bad contributions.

Re: Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy

#94

Post by wolvoleo » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 6:03 AM UTC

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.

I have many colleagues that use copilot for it and it's so dumb. This hyper-excited corporate drone style, the emoji dragged into everything, the bullet points.

In my opinion it really devalues the message they're sending. I immediately get this dismissive rolleyes feeling when I see it.

Re: Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy

#95

Post by uhfraid » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 6:07 AM UTC

fn-mote wrote: post #80

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.

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

Than it escalates to a platform issue so you just report them in that case. GitHub enforcement staff handles it

“- Creating alternative accounts specifically to evade moderation action taken by GitHub staff or users”

https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/acceptable-use-polici...

Re: Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy

#96

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 6:50 AM UTC

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.

[deleted]

Re: Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy

#97

Post by habinero » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 8:15 AM UTC

adastra22 wrote: post #68

habinero wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Humans are insanely good at figuring out intent and context, and running stuff through an LLM breaks that. The times I've had to communicate IRL in a language I don't speak well, I do my best to speak slowly and enunciate and trust they'll try their best to figure it out. It's usually pretty obvious what you're asking lol. (Also a lot of people just reply with "Can I help you?" in English lol) I've occasional…

> Humans are insanely good at figuring out intent and context I wish that was true.

It is true lol, that's our whole thing as a species.

Re: Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy

#98

Post by voidr » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 8:21 AM UTC

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.

I take Linus's stance on this: how are you going to enforce it? How do you know I didn't just generate this with an LLM?

Re: Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy

#99

Post by darkwater » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 8:36 AM UTC

darkwater wrote: post #20

antirez wrote: post #16

Good AI policies (like this one) can be spotted since the TLDR is "Don't submit shitty code". As such, good AI policies should be replaced by "Contribution policies" that says "Don't submit shitty code".

I think the gist and the "virality" of this policy is: 1) we accept good quality LLM code 2) we DO NOT accept LLM generated human interaction, including PR explanation 3) your PR must explain well enough the change in the description Which summed together are far more than "no shitty code". It's rather no shitty code that YOU understand

Errata: I obviously meant "no shitty (or good) code that YOU DO NOT understand"

Re: Jellyfin LLM/"AI" Development Policy

#100

Post by heavyset_go » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 10:49 AM UTC

anthonypasq wrote: post #27

darkwater wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the gist and the "virality" of this policy is: 1) we accept good quality LLM code 2) we DO NOT accept LLM generated human interaction, including PR explanation 3) your PR must explain well enough the change in the description Which summed together are far more than "no shitty code". It's rather no shitty code that YOU understand

> 1) we accept good quality LLM code there is no such thing as LLM code. code is code, the same standards have always applied no matter who or what wrote it. if you paid an indian guy to type out the PR for you 10 years ago, but it was submitted under your name, its still your responsibility.

LLM code and code written by a human are not fungible.

When it comes to IP, LLM output is not copyrightable unless the output is significantly modified by a human with their own creativity after it is generated.