[HN Gopher] Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators
___________________________________________________________________
Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators
Author : todsacerdoti
Score : 497 points
Date : 2025-06-25 23:26 UTC (23 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| teruakohatu wrote:
| So essentially it's "let us cover ourselves by saying it's not
| allowed" and in practice that means not allowing code that a
| human thinks is AI generated code.
|
| Universities have this issue too, despite many offering students
| and staff Grammarly (Gen AI) while also trying to ban Gen AI.
| _fat_santa wrote:
| Well I guess the key difference is code is deterministic, that
| is whether an paper accomplishes it's goals is somewhat
| subjective but with code its an absolute certainty.
|
| I'm sure that if a contributor working on a feature used cursor
| to initially generate the code but then goes over it to ensure
| it's working as expected that would be allowed, this is more
| for those folks that just want to jam in a quick vibe-coded PR
| so they can add "contributed to the QEMU project" on their
| resumes.
| hananova wrote:
| You'd be wrong, the linked commit clearly says that anything
| written by, or derived from, AI code generation is not
| allowed.
| SchemaLoad wrote:
| Sounds like a good idea to ensure developers are owning the
| code they submit rather than hiding behind "I don't know why it
| does that, ChatGPT wrote it".
|
| Use AI if you want to, but if the person on the other side can
| tell, and you can't defend the submission as your own, that's a
| problem.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| > Use AI if you want to, but if the person on the other side
| can tell, and you can't defend the submission as your own,
| that's a problem.
|
| The actual policy is "don't use AI code generators"; don't
| try to weasel that into "use it if you want to, but if the
| person on the other side can tell". That's effectively "it's
| only cheating if you get caught".
|
| By way of analogy, Open Source projects also typically have
| policies (whether written or unwritten) that you only submit
| code you are legally allowed to submit. In theory, you could
| take a pile of proprietary reverse-engineered code that you
| have no license to, or a pile of code from another project
| that you aren't respecting the license of, and submit it
| anyway, and slap a `Signed-off-by` on it. Nothing will
| physically stop you, and people _might_ not be able to tell.
| That doesn 't make it OK.
| SchemaLoad wrote:
| The way I interpret it is that if you brainstorm using
| ChatGPT but write your own code using the ideas created in
| this step that would be fine, the reviewer wouldn't suspect
| the code of being AI generated because you've made sure it
| fits in with the project and actually works. The exact
| wording here is that they will reject changes they suspect
| of being AI generated, not that you can't have read
| anything AI generated in the process.
|
| Getting AI to remind you of the libraries API is a fair bit
| different to having it generate 1000 lines of code you have
| hardly read before submitting.
| Art9681 wrote:
| What if the code is AI generated and the developer that
| drove it also understands the code and can explain it?
| Filligree wrote:
| Well, then you're not allowed to submit it. This isn't
| hard.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| It more like a clarification.
|
| The rules regarding the origin of code contributions are rather
| strict, that is, you can't contribute other people code unless
| you can make sure that the licence is appropriate. A LLM may
| output a copy of someone else code, sometimes verbatim, without
| giving you its origin, so you can't contribute code written by
| a LLM.
| Havoc wrote:
| I wonder whether the motivation is really legal? I get the sense
| that some projects are just sick of reviewing crap AI submissions
| SchemaLoad wrote:
| This could honestly break open source, with how quickly you can
| generate bullshit, and how long it takes to review and reject
| it. I can imagine more projects going the way of Android where
| you can download the source, but realistically you can't
| contribute as a random outsider.
| api wrote:
| Quality contributions to OSS are rare unless the project is
| huge.
| loeg wrote:
| Historically the opposite of quality contributions has been
| _no_ contributions, not net-negative contributions (random
| slop that costs more in review than it provides benefit).
| lmm wrote:
| No it hasn't? Net-negative contributions to open source
| have been extremely common for years, it's not like you
| need an LLM to make them.
| loeg wrote:
| I guess we've had very different experiences!
| LtWorf wrote:
| Nah. I've had a lot of bad contributions. One PR deleted
| and readded all of the lines in the project, and the
| entire test suite was failing.
|
| The person got upset at me for saying I could not accept
| such a thing.
|
| There's other examples.
| hollerith wrote:
| I've always thought that the possibility of _forking_ the
| project is the main benefit to open-source licensing, and we
| know Android can be forked.
| ants_everywhere wrote:
| the primary benefit of open source is freedom
| javawizard wrote:
| This is so tautological that I can't really tell what
| point you're trying to make.
| ants_everywhere wrote:
| how can it possibly be tautological? The comment just
| above me said something entirely different: that the
| primary benefit of open source is forking
| b00ty4breakfast wrote:
| I have an online acquaintance that maintains a very small and
| not widely used open-source project and the amount of (what
| we assume to be) automated AI submissions* they have to wade
| through is kinda wild given the very small number of
| contributors and users the thing has. It's gotta be clogging
| up these big projects like a DDoS attack.
|
| *"Automated" as in bots and "AI submissions" as in ai-
| generated code
| guappa wrote:
| I find that by being on codeberg instead of github i tune
| out a lot of the noise.
| zahlman wrote:
| For many projects you realistically can't contribute as a
| random outsider anyway, simply because of the effort involved
| in grokking enough of the existing architecture to figure out
| where to make changes.
| graemep wrote:
| I think it is yet another reason (potentially malicious
| contributors are another) that open source projects are going
| to have to verify contributors.
| disconcision wrote:
| i mean they say the policy is open for revision and it's also
| possible to make exceptions; if it's an excuse, they are going
| out of their way to let people down easy
| Lerc wrote:
| I'm not sure which way AI would move the dial when it comes to
| the median submission. Humans can, and do, make some crap code.
|
| If the problem is too many submissions, that would suggest
| there needs to be structures in place to manage that.
|
| Perhaps projects receiving lage quanties of updates need triage
| teams. I suspect most of the submissions are done in good
| faith.
|
| I can see some people choosing to avoid AI due to the
| possibility of legal issues. I'm doubtful of the likelihood of
| such problems, but some people favour eliminating all possibly
| over minimizing likelihood. The philosopher in me feels like
| people who think they have eliminated the possibility of
| something just haven't thought about it enough.
| catlifeonmars wrote:
| > If the problem is too many submissions, that would suggest
| there needs to be structures in place to manage that. >
| Perhaps projects receiving lage quanties of updates need
| triage teams. I suspect most of the submissions are done in
| good faith.
|
| This ignores the fact that many open source projects do not
| have the resources to dedicate to a large number of
| contributions. A side effect of LLM generated code is
| probably going to be a lot of code. I think this is going to
| be an issue that is not dependent on the overall quality of
| the code.
| Lerc wrote:
| I thought that this could be an opportunity for volunteers
| who can't dedicate the time to learn a codebase thoroughly
| enough to be a regular committer. They just have to
| evaluate a patch to see if it meets a threshold of quality
| where they can pass it on to someone who does know the
| codebase well.
|
| The barrier to being able to do a first commit on any
| project is usually quite high, there are plenty of people
| who would like to contribute to projects but cannnot
| dedicate the time n effort to pass that initial threshold.
| This might allow people an ability to contribute at a lower
| level while gently introducing them to the codebase where
| perhaps they might become a regular contributer in the
| future.
| ehnto wrote:
| Barrier of entry, automated submissions are two aspects I see
| changing with AI. You at least have to be able to code before
| submitting bad code.
|
| With AI you're going to get job hunters automating PRs for
| big name projects so they can stick the contributions in
| their resume.
| gerdesj wrote:
| The policy is concise and well bounded. It seems to me to
| assert that you cannot safely assign attribution of authorship
| of software code that you think was generated algorithmically.
|
| I use the term algorithmic because I think it is stronger than
| "AI lol". I note they use terms like AI code generator in the
| policy, which might be just as strong but looks to me as
| unlikely to becoming a useful legal term (its hardly "a man on
| the Clapham omnibus").
|
| They finish with this, rather reasonable flourish:
|
| "The policy we set now must be for today, and be open to
| revision. It's best to start strict and safe, then relax."
|
| No doubt they do get a load of slop but they seem to want to
| close the legal angles down first and attribution seems a fair
| place to start off. This play book looks way better than
| curl's.
| bobmcnamara wrote:
| Have you seen how Monsanto enforces their seed right?
| esjeon wrote:
| Possibly, but QEMU is such a critical piece software in our
| industry. Its application stretches from one end to the other -
| desktop VM, cloud/remote instance, build server, security
| sandbox, cross-platform environment, etc. Even a small legal
| risk can hurt the industry pretty badly.
| daeken wrote:
| I've been trying out Claude Code (the tool I've found most
| effective in terms of agentic code gen/manipulation) for an
| emulator project of mine for the last few days. Part of it is a
| compiler from an architecture definition to
| disassembler/interpreter/recompiler. I hit a fairly minor
| compiler bug and decided to ask Claude to debug and fix it. Some
| things I noted:
|
| 1. My C# code compiled just fine and ran even, but it was
| convinced that I was missing a closing brace on a lambda near
| where the exception was occurring. The diff was ... Putting the
| existing brace on a new line. Confidently stated that was the
| problem and declared it fixed.
|
| 2. It did figure out that an unexpected type was being seen, and
| implemented a pathway that allowed for it to get to the next
| error, but didn't look into _why_ that type had gotten there;
| that was the actual bug, not the unhandled type. So it "fixed"
| it, but just kicked the can down the road.
|
| 3. When figuring out the issue, it just looked at the stack
| trace. That was it. It was running the compiler itself; it
| could've just embedded some debug code (like I did) and work out
| what the actual issue was, but it didn't even try. The exception
| was just a NotSupportedException with no extra details to work
| off of, so adding just a crumb of context would let you solve the
| issue.
|
| Now, is this the simplest emulator you could throw AI at? No, not
| at all. But neither is qemu. I'm thoroughly unconvinced that
| current tools could provide real value on codebases like these.
| I'm bullish on them for the future, and I use GenAI constantly,
| but this ain't a viable use case today.
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| This is the part that makes me sure my job is safe. I use AI to
| _write_ code, but it really sucks at debugging.
| jekwoooooe wrote:
| When will people give up this archaic practice of sending patches
| over emails?
| SchemaLoad wrote:
| Sending patches over email is basically a filter for slop.
| Stops the low effort drive by PRs and anyone who actually wants
| to invest some time in to contributing won't have a problem
| working out the workflow.
| jnwatson wrote:
| AI can figure out how to send a patch via email a lot faster
| than a human.
| MobiusHorizons wrote:
| likely when it stops being a useful way to cut out noise
| gerdesj wrote:
| When enough people don't want to do it anymore. Feel free to
| step up, live with email patches, and add to the numbers of
| those who don't like it and say so.
|
| Why is it archaic if it works? I get there might be other ways
| to do patch sharing and discussion but what exactly is your
| problem with email as a transport?
|
| You might as well describe voice and ears as archaic!
| jekwoooooe wrote:
| Archaic:
|
| Very old or old fashioned
| wyldfire wrote:
| I understand where this comes from but I think it's a mistake. I
| agree it would be nice if there were "well settled law" regarding
| AI and copyright, probably relatively few rulings and next to
| zero legislation on which to base their feelings.
|
| In addition to a policy to reject contributions from AI, I think
| it may make sense to point out places where AI generated content
| _can_ be used. For example - how much of QEMU project 's
| (copious) CI setup is really stuff that is critical content to
| protect? What about ever-more interesting test cases or
| environments that could be enabled? Something like "contribute
| those things here instead, and make judicious use of AI there,
| with these kinds of guard rails..."
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| What's the risk of not doing this? Better code but slower
| velocity for an open source project?
|
| I think that particular brand of risk makes sense for this
| particular project, and the authors don't seem particularly
| negative toward GenAI as a concept, just going through a "one
| way door" with it.
| mrheosuper wrote:
| >Better code but slower velocity for an open source project
|
| Better code and "AI assist coding" are not exclusive of each
| other.
| kazinator wrote:
| There is a well settled practice in computing that you just
| don't plagiarize code. Even a small snippet. Even if copyright
| law would consider such a small thing "fair use".
| 9283409232 wrote:
| This isn't 100% true meaning it isn't well settled. Have
| people already forgotten Google vs Oracle? Google ended up
| winning that after years and years but the judgements went
| back and forth and there are around 4 or 5 guidelines to
| determine whether something is or isn't fair use and
| generative AI would fail at a few of those.
| kazinator wrote:
| Google vs. Oracle was about whether APIs are copyrightable,
| which is an important issue that speaks to antitrust.
| Oracle wanted the interface itself to be copyrighted so
| that even if someone reproduced the API from a description
| of it, it would infringe. The implication being that
| components which clone an API would be infringing, even
| though their implementation is original, discouraging
| competitors from making API-compatible components.
|
| My comment didn't say anything about the output of AI being
| fair use or not, rather that fair use (no matter where you
| are getting material from) _ipso facto_ doesn 't mean that
| copy paste is considered okay.
|
| Every employer I ever had discouraged copy and paste from
| anywhere as a blanket rule.
|
| At least, that had been the norm, before the LLM takeover.
| Obviously, organizations that use AI now for writing code
| are plagiarizing left and right.
| overfeed wrote:
| > Google vs. Oracle was about whether APIs are
| copyrightable, which is an important issue that speaks to
| antitrust.
|
| In addition to the Structure, Sequence and Organization
| claims, the original filing included a claim for
| copyright violation on 9 identical lines of code in
| _rangeCheck()_. This claim was dropped after the judge
| asked Oracle to reduce the number of claims, which forced
| Oracle to pare down to their strongest claims.
| bfLives wrote:
| > There is a well settled practice in computing that you just
| don't plagiarize code. Even a small snippet.
|
| I think way many developers use StackOverflow suggests
| otherwise.
| kazinator wrote:
| In the first place, in order to post _to_ StackOverflow,
| you are required to have the copyright over the code, and
| be able to grant them a perpetual license.
|
| They redistribute the material under the CC BY-SA 4.0
| license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
|
| This allows visitors to use the material, with attribution.
| One can, of course, use the ideas in a SO answer to develop
| one's own solution.
| behringer wrote:
| Show me the professional code base with the attribution
| to stack overflow and I'll eat my hat.
| _flux wrote:
| Obviously I cannot show the code base, but when I pick a
| pre-existing solution from Stackoverflow or elsewhere--
| though it is quite rare--I do add a comment linking to
| the source: after all, in case of SA the discussion there
| might be interesting for the future maintainers of the
| function.
|
| I just checked, though, and the code base I'm now working
| with has eight stackoverflow links. Not all are even
| written by me, according to quick check with git blame
| and git log -S..
| graemep wrote:
| I always do to, for exactly the same reason.
| graemep wrote:
| > you are required to have the copyright over the code,
| and be able to grant them a perpetual license.
|
| Which Stack Overflow cannot verify. It might be pulled
| from a code base, or generated by AI (I would bet a lot
| is now).
| pavon wrote:
| This isn't like some other legal questions that go decades
| before being answered in court. There are dozens of cases
| working through the courts today that will shed light on some
| aspects of the copyright questions within a few years. QEMU has
| made great progress over the last 22 years without the aid of
| AI, waiting a few more years isn't going to hurt them.
| dijksterhuis wrote:
| It's a simpler solution is just to wait until legal situation
| is clearer.
|
| QEMU is (mostly) GPL 2.0 licensed, meaning (most) code
| contributions need to be GPL 2.0 compatible [0]. Let's say,
| hypothetically, there's a code contribution added by some patch
| involving gen AI code which is derived/memorised/copied from
| non-GPL compatible code [1]. Then, hypothetically, a legal case
| sets precedent that gen AI FOSS code must re-apply the license
| of the original derived/memorised/copied code. QEMU maintainers
| would probably need to roll back all those incompatible code
| contributions. After some time, those code contributions could
| have ended up with downstream callers which also need to be
| rewritten (even in CI code).
|
| It might be possible to first say "only CI code which is
| clearly labelled as 'DO NOT RE-USE: AI' or some such". But the
| maintainers would still need to go through and rewrite those
| parts of the CI code if this hypothetical plays out. Plus it
| adds extra work to reviews and merge processes etc.
|
| it's just less work and less drama for everyone involved to say
| "no thank you (for now)".
|
| ----
|
| caveat: IANAL, and licensing is not my specific expertise (but
| i would quite like it to be one day)
|
| [0]: https://github.com/qemu/qemu/blob/master/LICENSE
|
| [1]: e.g. No license / MPL / Apache / Aritistic / Creative
| Commons https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-
| list.html#NonFreeSoftwa...
| hinterlands wrote:
| I think you need to read between the lines here. Anything you
| do is a legal risk, but this particular risk seems acceptable
| to many of the world's largest and richest companies. QEMU
| isn't special, so if they're taking this position, it's most
| likely simply because they don't want to deal with LLM-
| generated code for some other reason, are eager to use legal
| risk as a cover to avoid endless arguments on mailing lists.
|
| We do that in corporate environments too. "I don't like this"
| -> "let me see what lawyers say" -> "a-ha, you can't do it
| because legal says it's a risk".
| curious_cat_163 wrote:
| That's very conservative.
| JonChesterfield wrote:
| Interesting. Harder line than the LLVM one found at
| https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#ai-generated-cont...
|
| I'm very old man shouting at clouds about this stuff. I don't
| want to review code the author doesn't understand and I don't
| want to merge code neither of us understand.
| compton93 wrote:
| _I don 't want to review code the author doesn't understand _
|
| This really bothers me. I've had people ask me to do some task
| except they get AI to provide instructions on how to do the
| task and send me the instructions, rather than saying "Hey can
| you please do X". It's insulting.
| andy99 wrote:
| Had someone higher up ask about something in my area of
| expertise. I said I didn't think is was possible, he followed
| up with a chatGPT conversation he had where it "gave him some
| ideas that we could use as an approach", as if that was some
| useful insight.
|
| This is the same people that think that "learning to code" is
| a translation issue they don't have time for as opposed to
| experience they don't have.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| Imagine a boring dystopia where everyone is given
| hallucinated tasks from LLMs that may in some crazy way be
| feasible but aren't, and you can't argue that they're
| impossible without being fired since leadership lacks
| critical thinking.
| tines wrote:
| Reminds me of the wonderful skit, The Expert:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
| stirfish wrote:
| And the solution:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7MIJP90biM
| dotancohen wrote:
| That is incredibly accurate - I used to be at meetings
| like that monthly. Please submit this as an HN
| discussion.
| whoisthemachine wrote:
| Unfortunately this is the most likely outcome.
| turol wrote:
| That is a very good description of the Paranoia RPG.
| a4isms wrote:
| > This is the same people that think that "learning to
| code" is a translation issue they don't have time for as
| opposed to experience they don't have.
|
| This is very, very germane and a very quotable line. And
| these people have been around from long before LLMs
| appeared. These are the people who dash off an incomplete
| idea on Friday afternoon and expect to see a finished
| product in production by next Tuesday, latest. They have no
| self-awareness of how much context and disambiguation is
| needed to go from "idea in my head" to working,
| deterministic software that drives something like a process
| change in a business.
| bobjordan wrote:
| You can change "software" to "hardware" and this is still
| an all too common viewpoint, even for engineers that
| should know better.
| 1dom wrote:
| The unfortunate truth is that approach does work,
| sometimes. It's really easy and common for capable
| engineers to think their way out of doing something
| because of all the different things they can think about
| it.
|
| Sometimes, an unreasonable dumbass whose only authority
| comes from corporate heirarchy is needed to mandate the
| engineers start chipping away at the tasks. If they
| weren't a dumbass, they'd know the unreasonable thing
| they're mandating, and if they weren't unreasonable, they
| wouldn't mandate the someone does it.
|
| I am an an engineer. "Sometimes" could be swapped for
| "rarely" above, but the point still stands: as much
| frustration as I have towards those people, they do
| occasionally lead to the impossible being delivered. But
| then again, a stopped clock -> twice a day etc.
| taleinat wrote:
| That approach sometimes does work, but usually very
| poorly and often not at all.
|
| It can work very well when the higher-up is well informed
| and does have deep technical experience and
| understanding. Steve Jobs and Elon Musk are great, well-
| known examples of this. They've also provided great
| examples of the same approach mostly failing when applied
| outside of their areas of deep expertise and
| understanding.
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| if they're only right twice a day, you can run out of
| money doing stupid things before you hit midnight. in
| practice, there's a difference between a PHB asking a
| "stupid" question that leads to engineers having a
| lightbulb moment, vs a PHB insisting on going down a
| route that will never work.
| alluro2 wrote:
| A friend experienced a similar thing at work - he gave a
| well-informed assessment of why something is difficult to
| implement and it would take a couple of weeks, based on the
| knowledge of the system and experience with it - only for
| the manager to reply within 5 min with a screenshot of an
| (even surprisingly) idiotic ChatGPT reply, and a message
| along the lines of "here's how you can do it, I guess by
| the end of the day".
|
| I know several people like this, and it seems they feel
| like they have god powers now - and that they alone can
| communicate with "the AI" in this way that is simply
| unreachable by the rest of the peasants.
| OptionOfT wrote:
| Same here. You throw a question in a channel. Someone
| responds in 1 minute with a code example that either you
| had laying around, or would take > 5 minutes to write.
|
| The code example was AI generated. I couldn't find a
| single line of code anywhere in any codebase. 0 examples
| on GitHub.
|
| And of course it didn't work.
|
| But, it sent me on a wild goose because I trusted this
| person to give me a valuable insight. It pisses me off so
| much.
| mailund wrote:
| I experienced mentioning an issue I was stuck on during
| standup one day, then some guy on my team DMs me a
| screenshot of chatGPT with text about how to solve the
| issue. When I explained to him why the solution he had
| sent me didn't make sense and wouldn't solve the issue,
| he sent me back the reply the LLM would give by pasting
| in my reply, at which point I stopped responding.
|
| I'm just really confused what people who send LLM content
| to other people think they are achieving? Like if I
| wanted an LLM response, I would just prompt the LLM
| myself, instead of doing it indirectly though another
| person who copy/pastes back and forth.
| AdieuToLogic wrote:
| > I know several people like this, and it seems they feel
| like they have god powers now - and that they alone can
| communicate with "the AI" in this way that is simply
| unreachable by the rest of the peasants.
|
| A far too common trap people fall into is the fallacy of
| "your job is easy as all you have to do is <insert
| trivialization here>, but my job is hard because ..."
|
| Statistically generated text (token) responses
| constructed by LLM's to simplistic queries are an
| accelerant to the self-aggrandizing problem.
| spit2wind wrote:
| Sounds like a teachable moment.
|
| If it's that simple, sounds like you've got your
| solution! Go ahead and take care of it. If it fits V&V
| and other normal procedures, like passing tests and
| documentation, then we'll merge it in. Shouldn't be a
| problem for you since it will only take a moment.
| alluro2 wrote:
| Absolutely agree :) If only he wasn't completely non-
| technical, managing a team of ~30 devs of varying skill
| levels and experience - which is the root cause of most
| of the issues, I assume.
| latexr wrote:
| > and a message along the lines of "here's how you can do
| it, I guess by the end of the day".
|
| -- How about you do it, motherfucker?! If it's that
| simple, you do it! And when you can't, I'll come down
| there, push your face on the keyboard, and burn your
| office to the ground, how about that?
|
| -- Well, you don't have to get mean about it.
|
| -- Yeah, I do have to get mean about it. Nothing worse
| than an ignorant, arrogant, know-it-all.
|
| If Harlan Ellison were a programmer today.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-kiU0-f0cg&t=150s
| alluro2 wrote:
| Hah, that's a good clip :) Those "angry people" are
| really essential as an outlet for the rest of us.
| alganet wrote:
| In corporate, you are _forced_ to trust your coworker
| somehow and swallow it. Specially higher-ups.
|
| In free software though, these kinds of nonsense
| suggestions always happened, way before AI. Just look at
| any project mailing list.
|
| It is expected that any new suggestion will encounter some
| resistance, the new contributor itself should be aware of
| that. For serious projects specifically, the levels of
| skepticism are usually way higher than corporations, and
| that's healthy and desirable.
| colechristensen wrote:
| People keep asking me if AI is going to take my job and
| recent experience shows that it very much is not. AI is
| great for being mostly correct and then giving someone
| without enough context a mostly correct way to shoot
| themselves in the foot.
|
| AI further encourages the problem in DevOps/Systems
| Engineering/SRE where someone comes to you and says "hey
| can you do this for me" having come up with the solution
| instead of giving you the problem "hey can you help me
| accomplish this"... AI gives them solutions which is more
| steps away to detangle into what really needs to be done.
|
| AI has knowledge, but it doesn't have taste. Especially
| when it doesn't have all of the context a person with
| experience, it just has bad taste in solutions or just the
| absence of taste but with the additional problem that it
| makes it much easier for people to do things.
|
| Permissions on what people have access to read and
| permission to change is now going to have to be more
| restricted because not only are we dealing with folks who
| have limited experience with permissions, now we have them
| empowered by AI to do more things which are less advisable.
| MoreQARespect wrote:
| The question about whether it takes jobs away is more
| whether one programmer with taste can multiply their
| productivity between ~3-15x and take the same salary
| while demand for coding remains constant. It's less about
| whether the tool can directly replace 100% of the
| functions of a good programmer.
| joshstrange wrote:
| I've started to experience/see this and it makes me want to
| scream.
|
| You can't dismiss it out of hand (especially with it coming
| from up the chain) but it takes no time at all to generate
| by someone who knows nothing about the problem space (or
| worse, just enough to be dangerous) and it could take hours
| or more to debunk/disprove the suggestion.
|
| I don't know what to call this? Cognitive DDOS? Amplified
| Plausibility Attack? There should be a name for it and it
| should be ridiculed.
| whatevertrevor wrote:
| It's simply the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle/Brandolini's
| Law. It's just that bullshit generation speedrunners have
| recently discovered tool-assists.
| petesergeant wrote:
| > Had someone higher up ask about something in my area of
| expertise. I said I didn't think is was possible, he
| followed up with a chatGPT conversation he had where it
| "gave him some ideas that we could use as an approach", as
| if that was some useful insight.
|
| I would find it very insulting if someone did this to me,
| for sure, as well as a huge waste of my time.
|
| On the other hand I've also worked with some very
| intransigent developers who've actively fought against
| things they simply didn't want to do on flimsy technical
| grounds, knowing it couldn't be properly challenged by the
| requester.
|
| On yet another hand, I've also been subordinate to people
| with a small amount of technical knowledge -- or a small
| amount of knowledge about a specific problem -- who'll do
| the exact same thing without ChatGPT: fire a bunch of mid-
| wit ideas downstream that you have already thought about,
| but you then need to spend a bunch of time explaining why
| their hot-takes aren't good. Or the CEO of a small digital
| agency I worked at circa 2004 asking us if we'd ever
| considered using CSS for our projects (which were of course
| CSS heavy).
| sltr wrote:
| Reminds me of "Appeal to Aithority". (not a typo)
|
| An LLM said it, so it must be true.
|
| https://blog.ploeh.dk/2025/03/10/appeal-to-aithority/
| masfuerte wrote:
| You should send him a chatGPT critique of his management
| style.
|
| (Or not, unless you enjoy workplace drama.)
| itslennysfault wrote:
| At a company I used to work at I saw the CEO do this
| publicly (on slack) to the CTO who was an absolute expert
| on the topic at hand, and had spent 1000s of hours
| optimizing a specific system. Then, the CEO comes in and
| says I think this will fix our problems (link to ChatGPT
| convo). SOO insulting. That was the day I decided I should
| start looking for a new job.
| nijave wrote:
| Especially when you try to correct them and they insist AI is
| the correct one
|
| Sometimes it's fun reverse engineering the directions back
| into various forum, Stack Overflow, and documentation
| fragments and pointing out how AI assembled similar things
| into something incorrect
| windward wrote:
| It's the modern equivalent of sending a LMGTFY link, except
| the insult is from them being purely credulous and sincere
| guappa wrote:
| My company hired a new CTO and he asked chatgpt to write some
| lengthy documents about "how engineering gets done in our
| company".
|
| He also writes all his emails with chatgpt.
|
| I don't bother reading.
|
| Oddly enough he recently promoted a guy who has been fucking
| around with LLMs for years instead of working as his right
| hand man.
| JonChesterfield wrote:
| That's directly lethal, in a limited sympathy with
| engineers that don't immediately head for the exit sort of
| fashion. Best of luck
| guappa wrote:
| The most experienced people quit, yes. There's some other
| not as experienced who are left, but seeing how a noob
| with less seniority and a large ego is now their boss, I
| expect they're proof reading their CVs as well.
|
| I think under current management immigrants have no
| chance of getting promoted.
| latexr wrote:
| > Oddly enough he recently promoted a guy who has been
| fucking around with LLMs for years instead of working as
| his right hand man.
|
| Why is that odd? From the rest of your description, it
| seems entirely predictable.
| dheera wrote:
| > I don't want to review code the author doesn't understand
|
| The author is me and my silicon buddy. _We_ understand this
| stuff.
| recursive wrote:
| Of course we understand it. Just ask us!
| halostatue wrote:
| I have just started adding DCO to _all_ of the open source code
| that I maintain and will be adding text like this on
| `CONTRIBUTING.md`:
|
| ---
|
| LLM-Generated Contribution Policy
|
| Color is a library full of complex math and subtle decisions
| (some of them possibly even wrong). It is extremely important
| that any issues or pull requests be well understood by the
| submitter and that, especially for pull requests, the developer
| can attest to the Developer Certificate of Origin for each pull
| request (see LICENCE).
|
| If LLM assistance is used in writing pull requests, this must
| be documented in the commit message and pull request. If there
| is evidence of LLM assistance without such declaration, the
| pull request will be declined.
|
| Any contribution (bug, feature request, or pull request) that
| uses unreviewed LLM output will be rejected.
|
| ---
|
| I am also adding this to my `SECURITY.md` entries:
|
| ---
|
| LLM-Generated Security Report Policy
|
| Absolutely no security reports will be accepted that have been
| generated by LLM agents.
|
| ---
|
| As it's mostly just me, I'm trying to strike a balance, but my
| preference is against LLM generated contributions.
| japhyr wrote:
| > any issues or pull requests be well understood by the
| submitter
|
| I really like this phrasing, particularly in regards to PRs.
| I think I'll find a way to incorporate this into my projects.
| Even for smaller, non-critical projects, it's such a
| distraction to deal with people trying to make
| "contributions" that they don't clearly understand.
| jitl wrote:
| When I use LLM for coding tasks, it's like "hey please
| translate this YAML to structs and extract any repeated
| patterns to re-used variables". It's possible to do this
| transform with deterministic tools, but AI will do a fine job
| in 30s and it's trivial to test the new output is identical to
| the prompt input.
|
| My high-level work is absolutely impossible to delegate to AI,
| but AI really helps with tedious or low-stakes incidental
| tasks. The other day I asked Claude Code to wire up some graphs
| and outlier analysis for some database benchmark result CSVs.
| Something conceptually easy, but takes a fair bit of time to
| figure out libraries and get everything hooked up unless you're
| already an expert at csv processing.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| oh agree and amplify this -- graphs are worlds unto
| themselves. some of the high end published research papers
| have astounding contents, for example..
| mattmanser wrote:
| In my experience, AI will not do a fine job of things like
| this.
|
| If the definition is past any sort of length, it will
| hallucinate new properties, change the names, etc. It also
| has a propensity to start skipping bits of the definitions by
| adding in comments like "/** more like this here **/"
|
| It may work for you for small YAML files, but beware doing
| this for larger ones.
|
| Worst part about all that is that it looks right to begin
| with because the start of the definitions will be correct,
| but there will be mistakes and stuff missing.
|
| I've got a PoC hanging around where I did something similar
| by throwing an OpenAPI spec at an AI and telling it to
| generate some typescript classes because I was being lazy and
| couldn't be bothered to run it through a formal tool.
|
| Took me a while to notice a lot of the definitions had subtle
| bugs, properties were missing and it had made a bunch of
| stuff up.
| danielbln wrote:
| What does "AI" mean? GPT3.5 on a website, or Claude 4 Opus
| plugged into function calling and a harness of LSP, type
| checker and tool use? These are not the same, neither in
| terms of output quality nor in capability space. We need to
| be more specific about the tools we use when we discuss
| them. "IDEs are slow to load" wouldn't be a useful
| statement either.
| mattmanser wrote:
| How do any of those things help with it recognizing it's
| hallucinated new property names?
|
| The types don't exist outside of the yaml/json/etc.
|
| You can't check them.
| jitl wrote:
| For bigger inputs I have the AI write the new output to an
| adjacent file and diff the two to confirm equivalence
| stefanha wrote:
| There is ongoing discussion about this topic in the QEMU AI
| policy: https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-
| devel/20250625150941-mutt-send-...
| phire wrote:
| I do use GitHub copilot on my personal projects.
|
| But I refuse to use it as anything more than a fancy
| autocomplete. If it suggests code that's pretty close to what I
| was about to type anyway, I accept it.
|
| This ensures that I still understand my code, that there
| shouldn't be any hallucination derived bugs, [1] and there
| really shouldn't be any questions about copyright if I was
| about to type it.
|
| I find using copilot this way speeds me up. Not really because
| my typing is slow, it's more that I have a habit of getting
| bored and distracted while typing. Copilot helps me get to the
| next thinking/debugging part sooner.
|
| My brain really comprehend the idea that anyone would not want
| to not understand their code. Especially if they are going to
| submit it as a PR.
|
| And I'm a little annoyed that the existence of such people is
| resulting in policies that will stop me from using LLMs as
| autocomplete when submitting to open source projects.
|
| I have tried using copilot in other ways. I'd love for it to be
| able to do menial refactoring tasks for me. But every-time I
| experiment, it seems to fall off the rails so fast. Or it just
| ends up slower than what I could do manually because it has to
| re-generate all my code instead of just editing it.
|
| [1] _Though I find it really interesting that if I 'm in the
| middle of typing a bug, copilot is very happy to autocomplete
| it in its buggy form. Even when the bug is obvious from local
| context, like I've typoed a variable name._
| dawnerd wrote:
| That's how I use it too. I've tried to make agent mode work
| but it ends up taking just as long if not longer than just
| making the edits myself. And unless you're very narrowly
| specific models like sonnet will go off track making changes
| you never asked for. At least gpt4.1 is pretty lazy I guess.
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| You're the exact kind of person I want to work with. Self
| reflective and in opposition of lazy behaviours.
| rodgerd wrote:
| This to me is interesting when it comes to free software
| projects; sure there are a lot of people contributing as their
| day job. But if you contribute or manage a project for the
| pleasure of it, things which undermine your enjoyment -
| cleaning up AI slop - are absolutely a thing to say "fuck off"
| over.
| linsomniac wrote:
| >I don't want to review code the author doesn't understand
|
| I get that. But the AI tooling when guided by a competent human
| can generate some pretty competent code, a lot of it can be
| driven entirely through natural language instructions. And
| every few months, the tooling is getting significantly more
| capable.
|
| I'm contemplating what exactly it means to "understand" the
| code though. In the case of one project I'm working on, it's an
| (almost) entirely vibe-coded new storage backend to an existing
| VM orchestration system. I don't know the existing code base. I
| don't really have the time to have implemented it by hand (or I
| would have done it a couple years ago).
|
| But, I've set up a test cluster and am running a variety of
| testing scenarios on the new storage backend. So I understand
| it from a high level design, and from the testing of it.
|
| As an open source maintainer myself, I can imagine (thankfully
| I haven't been hit with it myself) how frustrating getting all
| sorts of low quality LLM "slop" submissions could be. I also
| understand that I'm going to have to review the code coming in
| whether or not the author of the submission understands it.
|
| So how, as developers, do we leverage these tools as
| appropriate, and signal to other developers the level of
| quality in code. As someone who spent months tracking down
| subtle bugs in early Linux ZFS ports, I deeply understand that
| significant testing can trump human authorship and review of
| every line of code. ;-)
| imiric wrote:
| > I'm contemplating what exactly it means to "understand" the
| code though.
|
| You can't seriously be questioning the meaning of
| "understand"... That's straight from Jordan B. Peterson's
| debate playbook which does nothing but devolve the
| conversation into absurdism, while making the person sound
| smart.
|
| > I've set up a test cluster and am running a variety of
| testing scenarios on the new storage backend. So I understand
| it from a high level design, and from the testing of it.
|
| You understand the system as well as any user could. Your
| tests only prove that the system works in specific scenarios,
| which may very well satisfy your requirements, but they
| absolutely do not prove that you understand how the system
| works internally, nor that the system is implemented with a
| reliable degree of accuracy, let alone that it's not
| misbehaving in subtle ways or that it doesn't have security
| issues that will only become apparent when exposed to the
| public. All of this might be acceptable for a tool that you
| built quickly which is only used by yourself or a few others,
| but it's far from acceptable for any type of production
| system.
|
| > As someone who spent months tracking down subtle bugs in
| early Linux ZFS ports, I deeply understand that significant
| testing can trump human authorship and review of every line
| of code.
|
| This doesn't match my (~20y) experience at all. Testing is
| important, particularly more advanced forms like fuzzing, but
| it's not a failproof method of surfacing bugs. Tests, like
| any code, can itself have bugs, it can test the wrong things,
| setup or mock the environment in ways not representative of
| real world usage, and most importantly, can only cover a
| limited amount of real world scenarios. Even in teams that
| take testing seriously, achieving 100% coverage, even for
| just statements, is seen as counterproductive and as a fool's
| errand. Deeply thorough testing as seen in projects like
| SQLite is practically unheard of. Most programmers I've
| worked with will often only write happy path tests, if they
| bother writing any at all.
|
| Which isn't to say that code review is the solution. But a
| human reviewing the code, building a mental model of how it
| works and how it's not supposed to work, can often catch
| issues before the code is even deployed. It is at this point
| that writing a test is valuable, so that that specific
| scenario is cemented in the checks for the software, and
| regressions can be avoided.
|
| So I wouldn't say that testing "trumps" reviews, but that
| it's not a reliable way of detecting bugs, and that both
| methods should ideally be used together.
| linsomniac wrote:
| You're right, "trumps" isn't the right word there. But, as
| you say, testing is an often neglected part of the process.
| There are absolutely issues that code review is going to be
| better at finding, particular security related ones. But,
| try fixing a subtle bug without a reproducible test case...
| ants_everywhere wrote:
| This is signed off primarily by RedHat, and they tend to be
| pretty serious/corporate.
|
| I suspect their concern is not so much whether users have own the
| copyright to AI output but rather the risk that AI will spit out
| code from its training set that belongs to another project.
|
| Most hypervisors are closed source and some are developed by
| litigious companies.
| duskwuff wrote:
| I'd also worry that a language model is much more likely to
| introduce subtle logical errors, potentially ones which violate
| the hypervisor's security boundaries - and a user relying
| heavily on that model to write code for them will be much less
| prepared to detect those errors.
| ants_everywhere wrote:
| Generally speaking AI will make it easier to write more
| secure code. Tooling and automation help a lot with security
| and AI makes it easier to write good tooling.
|
| I would wager good money that in a few years the most
| security-focused companies will be relying heavily on AI
| somewhere in their software supply chain.
|
| So I don't think this policy is about security posture. No
| doubt human experts are reviewing the security-relevant
| patches anyway.
| tho23i4234324 wrote:
| I'd doubt this very much - LLMs hallucinate API calls and
| commit all sorts of subtle errors that you need to catch
| (esp. if you're on proprietary problems which it's not
| trained on).
|
| It's a good replacement for Google, but probably nothing
| close to what it's being hyped out to be by the capital
| allocators.
| OtherShrezzing wrote:
| While LLMs are really good at generating content, one of
| their key weaknesses is their (relative) inability to
| detect _missing_ content.
|
| I'd argue that the most impactful software security bugs in
| the last couple of decades (Heartbleed etc) have been
| errors of omission, rather than errors of inclusion.
|
| This means LLMs are:
|
| 1) producing lots more code to be audited
|
| 2) poor at auditing that code for the most impactful class
| of bugs
|
| That feels like a dangerous combination.
| guappa wrote:
| > Generally speaking AI will make it easier to write more
| secure code
|
| In my personal experience, not at all.
| latexr wrote:
| > Generally speaking AI will make it easier to write more
| secure code.
|
| https://www.backslash.security/press-releases/backslash-
| secu...
| duskwuff wrote:
| Heh. Yup. And I'd be _especially_ concerned about code
| written for QEMU, as it 's an unusual type of
| application. There's lots of example code and other
| writings about security in web applications which a
| language model is likely to have encountered in its
| training; hypervisors are much less frequently discussed.
| blibble wrote:
| > but rather the risk that AI will spit out code from its
| training set that belongs to another project.
|
| this is everything that it spits out
| ants_everywhere wrote:
| This is an uninformed take
| Groxx wrote:
| It is a _legally untested_ take
| otabdeveloper4 wrote:
| No, this is an uninformed take.
| golergka wrote:
| When model trained on trillions of lines of code knows that
| inside of a `try` block, tokens `logger` and `.` have a high
| probability of being followed by `error` token, but almost
| zero probability of being followed by `find` token, which
| project does this belong to?
| Art9681 wrote:
| This is a "BlockBuster laughs Netflix out of the room" moment. I
| am a huge fan of QEMU and used it throughout my career. The
| maintainers have every right to govern their project as they see
| fit. But this is a lot of mental gymnastics to justify clinging
| to punchcards in a world where we now have magnetic tape and
| keyboards to do things faster. This tech didn't spawn weeks ago.
| Every major project has had at least two years to prepare for
| this moment.
|
| Pull your pants up.
| 9283409232 wrote:
| You're so dramatic. Like they said in the declaration, these
| are the early days of AI development and all the problems they
| mention will be eventually resolved so they have no problem
| taking a backseat while things sort themselves out and I
| respect that choice.
| add-sub-mul-div wrote:
| > This is a "BlockBuster laughs Netflix out of the room" moment
|
| I'm not sure that's the dunk you think it is. Good for Netflix
| for making money, but we're drowning in their empty slop
| content now and worse off for it.
| danielbln wrote:
| Who is forcing you to watch slop? And mind you, there was a
| TON of garbage at any local Blockbuster back in the day, with
| the added joy of having to go somewhere to rent it, being
| slapped with late and rewind fees or not even have
| availability of what you want to watch.
|
| Choice is good. It means more slop, but also more gold.
| Figure out how to find the gold.
| catlifeonmars wrote:
| 2 years isn't that long. It took the Linux kernel 10 years to
| start accepting code written in Rust. This isn't quite the same
| as the typical frontend flavor-of-the week JavaScript library.
| benlivengood wrote:
| Open source and libre/free software are particularly vulnerable
| to a future where AI-generated code is ruled to be either
| infringing _or_ public domain.
|
| In the former case, disentangling AI-edits from human edits could
| tie a project up in legal proceedings for years and projects
| don't have any funding to fight a copyright suit. Specifically,
| code that is AI-generated and subsequently modified or
| incorporated in the rest of the code would raise the question of
| whether subsequent human edits were non-fair-use derivative
| works.
|
| In the latter case the license restrictions no longer apply to
| portions of the codebase raising similar issues from derived
| code; a project that is only 98% OSS/FS licensed suddenly has
| much less leverage in takedowns to companies abusing the license
| terms; having to prove that infringers are definitely using the
| human-generated and licensed code.
|
| Proprietary software is only mildly harmed in either case; it
| would require speculative copyright owners to disassemble their
| binaries and try to make the case that AI-generated code
| infringed without being able to see the codebase itself. And
| plenty of proprietary software has public domain code in it
| already.
| deadbabe wrote:
| If a software is truly wide open source in the sense of "do
| whatever the fuck you want with this code, we don't care", then
| it has nothing to fear from AI.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| Won't apply to closed source, not public code, which the GPL
| (QEMU uses) is quite good at ensuring becomes open source...
| kgwxd wrote:
| Can't release someone else's proprietary source under a "do
| whatever the fuck you want" license and actually do whatever
| the fuck you want, without getting sued.
| deadbabe wrote:
| It'd be like trying to squeeze blood from a stone
| clipsy wrote:
| It'd be like trying to squeeze blood from every single
| entity using the offending code, actually.
| CursedSilicon wrote:
| It's incredible watching someone who has no idea what
| they're talking about boast so confidently about what
| people "can" or "can't" do
| iechoz6H wrote:
| You can do that but the fact you don't get sued is more
| luck than judgement.
| rzzzt wrote:
| The license does exist so you can release your own software
| under it, however: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Only more reason for OSS to _embrace_ AI generation - once
| it leaks into enough widely used or critical (think cURL)
| dependencies and exceeds certain critical mass, any
| judgement on the IP aspects other than "public domain" (in
| the broader sense) will become infeasible, as enforcing a
| different judgement would be like doing open heart surgery
| on the global economy.
| windward wrote:
| That's the situation we're already in with copyleft
| licences but legal teams still treat them like the
| plague.
| behringer wrote:
| Open source is about sharing the source code. You generally
| need to force companies to share their source code derived
| from your project, or else companies will simply take it,
| modify it, and never release their changes,and charge for it
| too.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Sharing is caring, being forced to share does not foster
| care.
|
| Companies don't care, so if you release something as open
| source that's relevant to them, "companies will simply take
| it, modify it, and never release their changes,and charge
| for it too" - but _that is what companies do_ , that is
| their very nature, and you knew that when you first opened
| the source.
|
| You also knew that when you picked a license, and it's a
| major reason for the particular choice you made. Want to
| force companies to share? _Pick GPL_.
|
| If you decide to yoke a dragon, and it instead snatches
| your shiny lure and flies away to its cave, you don't get
| to complain that the dragon isn't playing nice and doesn't
| want to become your beast of burden. If you picked MIT as
| your license, _that 's on you_.
| zer00eyz wrote:
| > or public domain
|
| https://news.artnet.com/art-world/ai-art-us-copyright-office...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...
|
| Im pretty sure that this ship has sailed.
| raincole wrote:
| It's sailed, but towards the other way:
| https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg5vjqdm1ypo
| fc417fc802 wrote:
| That's a brand new ongoing lawsuit. The ship hasn't sailed
| in either direction yet. It hasn't even been clearly
| established if Midjourney has liability let alone where the
| bounds for such liability might lie.
|
| Remember, anyone can attempt to sue anyone for anything at
| any time in a functional system. How far the suit makes it
| is a different matter.
| zer00eyz wrote:
| https://www.wired.com/story/ai-art-copyright-matthew-allen/
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/19/ai-art-cannot-be-
| copyrighted...
|
| Here are cases where the product of AI/ML are not the
| products of people and not capable of being copyrighted.
| These are about the OUTPUT being unable to be copyrighted.
| gwd wrote:
| On the contrary. IANAL, but this is my understanding of the
| law (setting aside the "work for hire" thing for
| simplicity)
|
| 1. If you come up with something completely new, you are
| the sole copyright holder.
|
| 2. If you take someone else's copyrighted work and
| transform it, then _both of you_ have a copyright on the
| derivative work.
|
| So if you write a brand new comic book that includes Darth
| Vader, you can't sell that without Disney's permission [1]:
| they have a copyright on Darth Vader, and so your comic
| book is partly copyrighted by them. But at the same time,
| _they_ can 't sell it without _your_ permission, because
| _you_ have a copyright on the comic book too.
|
| In the case of Midjourney outputs, my understanding of the
| current state of the law is this:
|
| 1. Only humans can create copyrights
|
| 2. So if Midjourney creates an entirely new image that's
| not derivative of anyone else's work (as defined by long-
| established copyright law on derivative works), then
| _nobody_ owns the copyright, and it 's in the public domain
|
| 3. If Midjourney creates an image that _is_ derived from
| someone else 's work (as defined by long established
| copyright law on derivative works), then _only_ Disney has
| a copyright on that derivative work.
|
| And so, in theory, Disney could distribute Darth Vader
| images _you_ made with Midjourney, unless you can convince
| the court that you had enough creative influence over them
| to warrant a copyright.
|
| [1] Yes of course fair use, trying to make a point here
| andreasmetsala wrote:
| Doesn't this also mean that if you transform the work
| created by Midjourney, you now have a copyright on the
| transformed work?
|
| I wonder what counts for transformed, is a filter enough
| or does it have to be more than that?
| gwd wrote:
| That's my understanding, yes. "What counts as
| transformed" is fuzzy, but it's an old well-established
| problem with hundreds of years of case law.
| jssjsnj wrote:
| QEMU: Define policy forbidding use of AI code generators
| AJ007 wrote:
| I understand what experienced developers don't want random AI
| contributions from no-knowledge "developers" contributing to a
| project. In any situation, if a human is review AI code line by
| line that would tie up humans for years, even ignoring anything
| legally.
|
| #1 There will be no verifiable way to prove something was AI
| generated beyond early models.
|
| #2 Software projects that somehow are 100% human developed will
| not be competitive with AI assisted or written projects. The
| only room for debate on that is an apocalypse level scenario
| where humans fail to continue producing semiconductors or
| electricity.
|
| #3 If a project successfully excludes AI contributions (not
| clear how other than controlling contributions to a tight group
| of anti-AI fanatics), it's just going to be cloned, and the
| clones will leave it in the dust. If the license permits
| forking then it could be forked too, but cloning and purging
| any potential legal issues might be preferred.
|
| There still is a path for open source projects. It will be
| different. There's going to be much, much more software in the
| future and it's not going to be all junk (although 99% might.)
| Eisenstein wrote:
| If AI can generate software so easily and which performs the
| expected functions, why do we even need to know that it did
| so? Isn't the future really just asking an AI for a result
| and getting that result? The AI would be writing all sorts of
| bespoke code to do the thing we ask, and then discard it
| immediately after. That is what seems more likely, and not
| 'so much software we have to figure out rights to'.
| amake wrote:
| > #2 Software projects that somehow are 100% human developed
| will not be competitive with AI assisted or written projects
|
| Still waiting to see evidence of AI-driven projects eating
| the lunch of "traditional" projects.
| viraptor wrote:
| It's happening slowly all around. It's not obvious because
| people producing high quality stuff have no incentive at
| all to mark their changes as AI-generated. But there are
| also local tools generated faster than you could adjust
| existing tools to do what you want. I'm running 3 things
| now just for myself that I generated from scratch instead
| of trying to send feature requests to existing apps I can
| buy.
|
| It's only going to get more pervasive from now on.
| alganet wrote:
| Can you show these 3 things to us?
| WD-42 wrote:
| For some reason these fully functional ai generated
| projects that the authors vibe out while playing guitar
| and clipping their toenails are never open source.
| dcow wrote:
| Except this one is (see your sibling).
| fc417fc802 wrote:
| > the authors vibe out while playing guitar and clipping
| their toenails
|
| I don't think anyone is claiming that. If you submit
| changes to a FOSS project and an LLM assisted you in
| writing them how would anyone know? Assuming at least
| that you are an otherwise competent developer and that
| you carefully review all code before you commit it.
|
| The (admittedly still controversial) claim being made is
| that developers with LLM assistance are more productive
| than those without. Further, that there is little
| incentive for such developers to advertise this
| assistance. Less trouble for all involved to represent it
| as 100% your own unassisted work.
| EGreg wrote:
| Why would you need to carefully review code? That is so
| 2024. You're bottlenecking the process and are at a
| disadvantage when the AI could be working 24/7. We have
| AI agents that have been trained to review thousands of
| PRs that are produced by other, generative agents, and
| together they have already churned out much more software
| than human teams can write in a year.
|
| AI "assistance" is a short intermediate phase, like the
| "centaurs" that Garry Kasparov was very fond of (human +
| computer beat both a human and a computer by itself...
| until the computer-only became better).
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_chess
| amake wrote:
| > We have AI agents that have been trained to review
| thousands of PRs that are produced by other, generative
| agents, and together they have already churned out much
| more software than human teams can write in a year.
|
| Was your comment tongue-in-cheek? If not, where is this
| huge mass of AI-generated software?
| rvnx wrote:
| All around you, just that it doesn't make sense for
| developers to reveal that a lot of their work is now
| about chunking and refining the specifications written by
| the product owner.
|
| Admitting such is like admitting you are overpaid for
| your job, and that a 20 USD AI-agent can do better and
| faster than you for 75% of the work.
|
| Is it easy to admit that you have learnt skills for 10+
| years that are progressively already getting replaced by
| a machine ? (like thousands of jobs in the past).
|
| More and more, developer is going to be a monkey job
| where your only task is to make sure there is enough coal
| in the steam machine.
|
| Compilers destroyed the jobs of developers writing
| assembler code, they had to adapt. They insisted that
| hand-written assembler was better.
|
| Here is the same, except you write code in natural
| language. It may not be optimal in all situations but it
| often gets the job done.
| bonzini wrote:
| Good luck debugging
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| You don't _debug_ AI-generated code - you throw the
| problematic chunk away and have AI write it again, and if
| that doesn 't help, you repeat the process, possibly with
| larger chunks.
|
| Okay, not in every case, but in many, and that's where
| we're headed. The reason is _economics_ - i.e. the same
| reason approximately no one in the West repairs their
| clothes or appliances; they just throw the damaged thing
| away and buy a new one. Human labor is expensive,
| automated production is cheap - even more so in digital
| space.
| amake wrote:
| > All around you, just that it doesn't make sense for
| developers to reveal that
|
| OK, but I asked for evidence and people just keep not
| providing any.
|
| "God is all around you; he just works in mysterious ways"
|
| OK, good luck with that.
| rvnx wrote:
| Billions of people believe in god(s). In fact, 75 to 85%
| of the world population, btw.
| amake wrote:
| And?
| fc417fc802 wrote:
| Obviously it's the basis for a religion. We're to have
| faith in the ability of LLMs. To ask for evidence of that
| is to question the divine. You can ask a model itself for
| the relevant tenants pertaining to any given situation.
| latexr wrote:
| And not that long ago, the majority of the population
| believed the Earth is flat, and that cigarettes are good
| for your health. Radioactive toys were being sold to
| children.
|
| Wide belief does not equal truth.
| alganet wrote:
| Billions of people _say_ they believe in god. It's very
| different.
|
| --
|
| When you analyze church attendance, it drops to roughly
| 50% instead of 85% of the population:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_attendance#Demograph
| ics
|
| If you start to investigate many aspects of religious
| belief, like how many christians read the bible, the
| numbers drop drastically to less than 15%
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/299433/bible-
| readership-...
|
| This demonstrates that we cannot rely on self-reporting
| to understand religious belief. In practice, most people
| are closer to atheists than believers.
| fc417fc802 wrote:
| That's rather silly. Neither of those things is a
| requirement for belief.
| alganet wrote:
| You can believe all you want, but practice is what
| actually matters.
|
| It's the same thing with AI.
| alganet wrote:
| I have a complete proof that P=NP but it doesn't make
| sense to reveal to the world that now I'm god. It would
| crush their little hearts.
| ben_w wrote:
| P = NP is less "crush their little hearts", more "may
| cause widespread heart attacks across every industry due
| to cryptography failing, depending on if the polynomial
| exponent is small enough".
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| A very very big if.
|
| Also a sufficiently good exponential solver would do the
| same thing.
| latexr wrote:
| > Assuming at least that you are an otherwise competent
| developer and that you carefully review all code before
| you commit it.
|
| That is a big assumption. If everyone were doing that,
| this wouldn't be a major issue. But as the curl developer
| has noted, people are using LLMs without thinking and
| wasting everyone's time and resources.
|
| https://www.linkedin.com/posts/danielstenberg_hackerone-
| curl...
|
| I can attest to that. Just the other day I got a bug
| report, clearly written with the assistance of an LLM,
| for software which has been stable and used in several
| places for years. This person, when faced with an error
| on their first try, instead of pondering "what am I doing
| wrong" instead opened a bug report with a "fix". Of
| course, they were using the software wrong. They did not
| follow the very short and simple instructions and
| essentially invented steps (probably suggested by an LLM)
| that caused the problem.
|
| Waste of time for everyone involved, and one more notch
| on the road to causing burnout. Some of the worst kind of
| users are those who think "bug" means "anything which
| doesn't immediately behave the way I thought it would".
| LLMs empower them, to the detriment of everyone else.
| fc417fc802 wrote:
| Sure I won't disagree that those people also exist but I
| don't think that's who the claim is being made about.
| Pointing out that subpar developers exist doesn't refute
| that good ones exist.
| bredren wrote:
| Mine is. And it is awesome:
| https://github.com/banagale/FileKitty
|
| The most recent release includes a MacOS build in a dmg
| signed by Apple:
| https://github.com/banagale/FileKitty/releases/tag/v0.2.3
|
| I vibed that workflow just so more people could have
| access to this tool. It was a pain and it actually took
| time away from toenail clipping.
|
| And while I didn't lay hands on a guitar much during this
| period, I did manage to build this while bouncing between
| playing Civil War tunes on a 3D-printed violin and
| generating music in Suno for a soundtrack to "Back on
| That Crust," the missing and one true spiritual successor
| to ToeJam & Earl: https://suno.com/song/e5b6dc04-ffab-431
| 0-b9ef-815bdf742ecb
| fingerlocks wrote:
| This app is concatenating files with an extra line of
| metadata added? You know this could be done in a few
| lines of shell script? You can then make it a finder
| action extension so it's part of the system file manager
| app.
| pwm wrote:
| Sic transit gloria mundi
| bredren wrote:
| The parent claim was that devs don't open-source their
| personal AI tools. FileKitty is mine and it is MIT-
| licensed on GitHub.
|
| It began as an experiment in AI-assisted app design and a
| cross-platform "cat these files" utility.
|
| Since then it has picked up:
|
| - Snapshot history (and change flags) for any file
| selection
|
| - A rendered folder tree that LLMs can digest, with per-
| prompt ignore filters
|
| - String-based ignore rules for both tree and file
| output, so prompts stay surgical
|
| My recent focus is making that generated context modular,
| so additional inputs (logs, design docs, architecture
| notes) can plug in cleanly. Apple's new on-device
| foundation models could pair nicely with that.
|
| The bigger point: most AI tooling hides the exact nature
| of context. FileKitty puts that step in the open and
| keeps the programmer in the loop.
|
| I continue to believe LLMs can solve big problems with
| appropriate context and that intentionality in context
| prep is important step in evaluating ideas and
| implementation suggestions found in LLM outputs.
|
| There's a Homebrew build available and I'd be happy to
| take contributions: https://github.com/banagale/FileKitty
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Going by the standard of "But there are also local tools
| generated faster than you could adjust existing tools to
| do what you want", here's a random one of mine that's in
| regular use by my wife:
|
| https://github.com/TeMPOraL/qr-code-generator
|
| Built with Aider and either Sonnet 3.5 or Gemini 2.5 Pro
| (I forgot to note that down in this project), and
| recently modified with Claude Code because I had to test
| it on _something_.
|
| Getting the first version of this up was literally both
| faster and easier than finding a QR code generator that
| I'm sure is not bloated, not bullshit, not loaded with
| trackers, that's not using shorteners or its own URL
| (it's always a stupid idea to use URL shorteners you
| don't control), not showing ads, mining bitcoin and shit,
| one that my wife can use in her workflow without being
| distracted too much. Static page, domain I own, a bit of
| fiddling with LLMs.
|
| What I can't link to is half a dozen single-use tools or
| faux tools created on the fly as part of working on
| something. But this happens to me couple times a month.
|
| To anchor another vertex in this parameter space, I found
| it _easier and faster_ to ask LLM to build me a
| "breathing timer" (one that counts down N seconds and
| resets, repeatedly) with analog indicator by requesting
| it, because a search query to Google/Kagi would be of
| comparable length, and then I'd have to click on results!
|
| EDIT: Okay, another example:
|
| https://github.com/TeMPOraL/tampermonkey-
| scripts/blob/master...
|
| It overlays a trivial UI to set up looping over a segment
| of any YouTube video, and automatically persists the
| setting by video ID. It solves the trivial annoyance of
| channel jingles and other bullshit at start/end of videos
| that I use repeatedly as background music.
|
| This was mostly done zero-shot by Claude, with maybe two
| or three requests for corrections/extra features, total
| development time maybe 15 minutes. I use it every day all
| the time ever since.
|
| You could say, "but SponsorBlock" or whatever, but per
| what GP wrote, I just needed a small fraction of
| functionality of the tools I know exist, and it was
| trivial to generate that with AI.
| alganet wrote:
| Your QR generator is actually a project written by humans
| repackaged:
|
| https://github.com/neocotic/qrious
|
| All the hard work was made by humans.
|
| I can do `npm install` without having to pay for AI,
| thanks.
| ben_w wrote:
| I am reminded of a meme about musicians. Not well enough
| to find it, but it was something like this:
| Real musicians don't mix loops they bought. Real
| musicians make their own synth patches. Real
| musicians build their own instruments. Real
| musicians hand-forge every metal component in their
| instruments. ... They say real musicians
| raise goats for the leather for the drum-skins, but I
| wouldn't know because I haven't made any music in months
| and the goats smell funny.
|
| There's two points here:
|
| 1) even though most of people on here know what npm is,
| many of us are not web developers and don't really know
| how to turn a random package into a useful webapp.
|
| 2) The AI is faster than googling a finished product that
| already exists, not just as an NPM package, but as a
| complete website.
|
| Especially because search results require you to go
| through all the popups everyone stuffs everywhere because
| cookies, ads, before you even find out if it was actually
| a scam where the website you went to first doesn't
| actually do the right thing (or perhaps *anything*)
| anyway.
|
| It is also, for many of us, the same price: free.
| latexr wrote:
| > I am reminded of a meme about musicians. Not well
| enough to find it
|
| You only need to search for "loops goat skin". You're
| butchering the quote and its meaning quite a bit. The
| widely circulated version is:
|
| > I thought using loops was cheating, so I programmed my
| own using samples. I then thought using samples was
| cheating, so I recorded real drums. I then thought that
| programming it was cheating, so I learned to play drums
| for real. I then thought using bought drums was cheating,
| so I learned to make my own. I then thought using premade
| skins was cheating, so I killed a goat and skinned it. I
| then thought that that was cheating too, so I grew my own
| goat from a baby goat. I also think that is cheating, but
| I'm not sure where to go from here. I haven't made any
| music lately, what with the goat farming and all.
|
| It's not about "real musicians"1 but a personal
| reflection on dependencies and abstractions and the
| nature of creative work and remixing. Your interpretation
| of it is backwards.
|
| 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
| alganet wrote:
| Ice Ice Baby getting the bass riff of Under Pressure is
| sampling. Making a cover is covering. Milli Vanilli is
| another completely different situation.
|
| I am sorry, none of your points are made. Makes no sense.
|
| The LLM work sounds dumb, and the suggestion that it made
| "a qr code generator" is disingenuous. The LLM barely did
| a frontend for it. Barely.
|
| Regarding the "free" price, read the comment I replied on
| again:
|
| > Built with Aider and either Sonnet 3.5 or Gemini 2.5
| Pro
|
| Paid tools.
|
| It sounds like the author payed for `npm install`, and
| thinks he's on top of things and being smart.
| ben_w wrote:
| > The LLM work sounds dumb, and the suggestion that it
| made "a qr code generator" is disingenuous. The LLM
| barely did a frontend for it. Barely.
|
| Yes, and?
|
| The goal wasn't "write me a QR library" it was "here's my
| pain point, solve it".
|
| > It sounds like the author payed for `npm install`, and
| thinks he's on top of things and being smart.
|
| I can put this another way if you prefer:
| Running `npm install qrious`: trivial. Knowing
| qrious exists and how to integrate it into a page:
| expensive.
|
| https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/know-where-man/
|
| > > Built with Aider and either Sonnet 3.5 or Gemini 2.5
| Pro
|
| > Paid tools.
|
| I get Sonnet 4 for free at https://claude.ai -- I know
| version numbers are weird in this domain, but I kinda
| expect that means Sonnet 3.5 was free at some point? Was
| it not? I mean, 3.7 is also a smaller version number but
| listed as "pro", so IDK...
|
| Also I get Gemini 2.5 Pro for free at
| https://aistudio.google.com
|
| Just out of curiosity, I've just tried using Gemini 2.5
| Pro (for free) myself to try this. The result points to a
| CDN of qrcodejs, which I assume is this, but don't know
| my JS libraries so can't confirm this isn't just two
| different ones with the same name:
| https://github.com/davidshimjs/qrcodejs
|
| My biggest issue with this kind of thing in coding is the
| same as my problem with libraries in general: you're
| responsible for the result even if you don't read what
| the library (/AI) is doing. So, I expect some future
| equivalent of the npm left-pad incident -- memetic
| monoculture, lots of things fail at the same time.
| alganet wrote:
| > Knowing qrious exists and how to integrate it into a
| page: expensive.
|
| qrious literally has it integrated already:
|
| https://github.com/davidshimjs/qrcodejs/blob/master/index
| .ht...
|
| I see many issues. The main one is that none of this is
| relevant to the qemu discussion. It's on another whole
| level of project.
|
| I kind of regret asking the poor guy to show his stuff.
| None of these tutorial projects come even close to what
| an AI contribution to qemu would look like. It's
| pointless.
| ben_w wrote:
| The very first part of the quotation is "Knowing qrious
| exists".
|
| So the fact they've already got the example is great if
| you do in fact already have that knowledge, _and
| *completely useless* if you don 't_.
|
| > I kind of regret asking the poor guy to show his stuff.
| None of these tutorial projects come even close to what
| an AI contribution to qemu would look like. It's
| pointless.
|
| For better and worse, I suspect it's _very much_ the kind
| of thing AI would contribute.
|
| I also use it for things, and it's... well, I _have_ seen
| worse code from real humans, but I don 't think highly of
| those humans' coding skills. The AI I've used so far are
| solidly at the quality level of "decent for a junior
| developer", not more, not less. Ridiculously broad
| knowledge (which is why that quality level is even
| useful), but that quality level.
|
| Use it because it's cheap or free, when that skill level
| is sufficient. Unless there's a legal issue, which there
| is for qemu, in which case don't.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Person in question here.
|
| I didn't know qrious exist. Last time I checked for
| frontend-only QR code generators myself, pre-AI, I
| couldn't find anything useful. I don't do frontend work
| daily, I'm not on top of the garbagefest the JS
| environment is.
|
| Probably half the win applying AI to this project was
| that it a) discovered qrious for me, and b) made me a
| working example frontend, in less time than it would take
| me to find the library myself among sea of noise.
|
| 'ben_w is absolutely correct when he wrote:
|
| > _The goal wasn 't "write me a QR library" it was
| "here's my pain point, solve it"._
|
| And: <quote> Running `npm install
| qrious`: trivial. Knowing qrious exists and how to
| integrate it into a page: expensive. </quote>
|
| This is precisely what it was. I built this in between
| other stuff, paying half attention to it, to solve an
| immediate need my wife had. The only thing I cared about
| it here is that:
|
| 1. It worked and was trivial to use
|
| 2. Was 100% under my control, to guarantee no tracking,
| telemetry, ads, crypto miners, and other usual web
| dangers, are present, and ensure they never are going to
| be present.
|
| 3. It had no build step whatsoever, and minimal
| dependencies that could be vendored, because again, _I
| don 't do webshit for a living_ and don't have time for
| figuring out this week's flavor of building "Hello world"
| in Node land.
|
| (Incidentally, I'm using Claude Code to build something
| bigger using a web stack, which forced me to figure out
| the current state of tooling, and believe me, it's not
| much like what I saw 6 months ago, and nothing like what
| I saw a year ago.)
|
| 2 and 3 basically translate to "I don't want to _ever_
| think about it again ". Zero ops is my principle :).
|
| ----
|
| > _I see many issues. The main one is that none of this
| is relevant to the qemu discussion. It 's on another
| whole level of project._
|
| It was relevant to the topic discussed in this subthread.
| Specifically about the statement:
|
| > _But there are also local tools generated faster than
| you could adjust existing tools to do what you want. I 'm
| running 3 things now just for myself that I generated
| from scratch instead of trying to send feature requests
| to existing apps I can buy._
|
| The implicit point of larger importance is: AI
| contributions may not show up fully polished in OSS
| repos, but making it possible to do throwaway tools to
| address pain points directly provides advantages _that
| compound_.
|
| And my examples are just concrete examples of projects
| that were AI generated with a mindset of "solve this pain
| point" and not "build a product", and _making them took
| less time and effort than my participation in this
| discussion already did_.
| alganet wrote:
| Cool, makes sense.
|
| Since you're here, I have another question relevant to
| the thread: do you pay for AI tools or are you using them
| for free?
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| TL;DR: I pay, I always try to use SOTA models if I can.
|
| I pay for them; until last week, this was almost
| entirely[0] pay-as-you-go use of API keys via TypingMind
| (for chat) and Aider (for coding). The QR code project I
| linked was made by Aider. Total cost was around $1 IIRC.
|
| API options were, until recently, very cheap. Most of my
| use was around $2 to $5 per project, sometimes under $2.
| I mostly worked with GPT-4, then Sonnet 3.5, briefly with
| Deepseek-R1; by the time I got around to testing Claude
| Sonnet 3.7, Google released Gemini 2.5 Pro, which was
| substantially cheaper, so I stuck to the latter.
|
| Last week I got myself the Max plan for Anthropic (first
| 5x, then the 20x one) specifically for Claude Code,
| because using pay-as-you-go pricing with top models in
| the new "agentic" way got stupidly expensive; $100 or
| $200 per month may sound like a lot, but less so when
| taking the API route would have you burn this much in a
| day or two.
|
| --
|
| [0] - I have the $20/month "Plus" subscription to
| ChatGPT, which I keep because of gpt-4o image generation
| and o3 being excellent as my default model for random
| questions/problems, many of them not even coding-related.
| I could access o3 via API, but this gets stupidly
| expensive for casual use; subscription is a better deal
| now.
| ben_w wrote:
| > TL;DR: I pay, I always try to use SOTA models if I can.
|
| Interesting; I'm finding myself doing the opposite -- I
| have API access to at least OpenAI, but all the SOTA
| stuff becomes free so fast that I don't expect to lose
| much by waiting.
|
| My OpenAI API credit expired mostly unused.
| Philpax wrote:
| Here's Armin Ronacher describing his open-source "sloppy
| XML" parser that he had AI write with his guidance from
| this week: https://lucumr.pocoo.org/2025/6/21/my-first-
| ai-library/
| latexr wrote:
| > To be clear: this isn't an endorsement of using models
| for serious Open Source libraries. This was an experiment
| to see how far I could get with minimal manual effort,
| and to unstick myself from an annoying blocker. The
| result is good enough for my immediate use case and I
| also felt good enough to publish it to PyPI in case
| someone else has the same problem.
|
| By their own admission, this is just kind of OK. They
| don't even know how good or bad it is, just that it kind
| of solved an immediate problem. That's not how you create
| sustainable and reliable software. Which is OK, sometimes
| you just need to crap something out to do a quick job,
| but that doesn't really feel like what your parent
| comment is talking about.
| irthomasthomas wrote:
| My llm-consortium project was vibe coded. Some notes on
| how I did that in the announcement tweet if you click
| through https://x.com/karpathy/status/1870692546969735361
| viraptor wrote:
| Only the simplest one is open (and before you discount it
| as too trivial, somehow none of the other ones did what I
| wanted) https://github.com/viraptor/pomodoro
|
| The others are just too specific for me to be useful for
| anyone else: an android app for automatic processing of
| some text messages and a work scheduling/prioritising
| thing. The time to make them generic enough to share
| would be much longer than creating my specific version in
| the first place.
| a57721 wrote:
| > and before you discount it as too trivial, somehow none
| of the other ones did what I wanted
|
| No offense, it's really great that you are able to make
| apps that do exactly what you want, but your examples are
| not very good to show that "software projects that
| somehow are 100% human developed will not be competitive
| with AI assisted or written projects" (as someone else
| suggested above). Complex real world software is
| different from pomodoro timers and TODO lists.
| viraptor wrote:
| Cut it out with patronising, I work with complex
| software, which is why I specifically mentioned the only
| example I published was simple.
|
| > but your examples are not very good to show that
| "software projects that somehow are 100% human developed
| will not be competitive with AI assisted or written
| projects"
|
| Here's the thing though - it's already the case, because
| I wouldn't create those tools but hand otherwise. I just
| don't have the time, and they're too personal/edge-case
| to pay anyone to make them. So the comparison in this
| case is between 100% human developed non-existent
| software and AI generated project which exists. The
| latter wins in every category by default.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| I don't think they're being patronizing, it's that
| "simple personal app that was barely worth making" is
| nice to have but not at all what they want evidence of.
| viraptor wrote:
| Whether it was worth making is for me to judge since it
| is a personal app. It improves my life and work, so yes,
| it was very much worth it.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| You said you wouldn't have made it if it took longer,
| isn't that a barely?
|
| But either way it's not an example of what they wanted.
| a57721 wrote:
| My apologies, I didn't want to sound patronizing and
| wasn't making assumptions about your work and experience
| based on your examples, I am happy that generative AI
| allows you to make such apps. However, they are very
| similar to the demos that are always presented as
| showcases.
| fragmede wrote:
| > Complex real world software is different from pomodoro
| timers and TODO lists.
|
| Simplistic Pomodoro timer with no features, sure, but a
| full blown modern Todo app that syncs to configurable
| backend(s), has a website, mobile apps, an electron app,
| CLI/TUI, web hooks, other integrations? Add a login
| system and allow users to assign todos to each other, and
| have todos depend on other todos and visualizations and
| it starts looking like JIRA, which is totally complex
| real world software.
|
| The weakness of LLMs is that they can't do anything
| that's not in their training data. But they've got so
| much training data that say you had a box of Lego bricks
| but could only use those bricks to build models. If you
| had a brick copier, and one copy of every single brick
| type on the Internet, the fact that you couldn't invent
| new pieces from scratch would be a limitation, but given
| the number of bricks on all the Internet, that covers a
| lot of area. Most (but not all) software is some flavor
| of CRUD app, and if LLMs could only write every CRUD app
| ever that would still be tremendous value.
| alganet wrote:
| > The time to make them generic enough to share would be
| much longer than creating my specific version in the
| first place
|
| Welcome to the reality of software development. "Works on
| my machine" is often not good enough to make the cut.
| viraptor wrote:
| It doesn't matter that my thing doesn't generalise if
| someone can build their own customised solution quickly.
| But also, if I wanted to sell it or distribute it, I'd
| ensure it was more generic from the beginning.
| alganet wrote:
| You need to put your money where your mouth is.
|
| If you comment about AI generated code in a thread about
| qemu (mission-critical project that many industries rely
| upon), a pomodoro app is not going to do the trick.
|
| And no, it doesn't "show that is possible". qemu is not
| only more complex, it's a whole different problem space.
| nijave wrote:
| Not sure about parent but you could argue Jetbrains fancy
| auto complete is AI and generates a substantial portion
| of code. It runs using a local model and, in my
| experience, does pretty good at guessing the rest of the
| line with minimal input (so you could argue 80% of each
| line was AI generated)
| linsomniac wrote:
| Not OP, but:
|
| I'm getting towards the end of a vibe coded ZFS storage
| backend to ganeti that includes the ability to live
| migrate VMs to another host by: taking snapshot and
| replicating it to target, pausing VM, taking another
| incremental snapshot and replicating it, and then
| unpausing the VM on the new destination machine.
| https://github.com/linsomniac/ganeti/tree/newzfs
|
| Other LLM tools I've built this week:
|
| This afternoon I built a web-based SQL query
| editor/runner with results display, for dev/ops people to
| run read-only queries against our production database. To
| replace an existing super simple one, and add query
| syntax highlighting, snippet library, and other modern
| features. I can probably release this though I'd need to
| verify that it won't leak anything. Targets SQL Server.
|
| A couple CLI Jira tools to pull a list of tickets I'm
| working on (with cache so I can get an immediate
| response, then get updates after Jira response comes
| back), and tickets with tags that indicate I have to
| handle them specially.
|
| An icinga CLI that downtimes hosts, for when we do
| sweeping machine maintenances like rebooting a VM host
| with dozens of monitored children.
|
| An Ansible module that is a "swiss army knife" for
| filesystem manipulation, merging the functions of copy,
| template, file, so you can loop over a list and: create a
| directory, template a couple files into it, doing a
| notify on one and a when on another, ensure a file exists
| if it doesn't already, to reduce duplication of
| boilerplate when doing a bunch of file deploys. This I
| will release as a ansible galaxy module once I have it
| tested a little more.
| EGreg wrote:
| I vibe-coded my own MySQL-compatible database that
| performs better than MariaDB, after my agent optimized it
| for 12 hours. It is also a time-traveling DB and performs
| better on all benchmarks and the AI says it is completely
| byzantine-fault-tolerant. Programmers, you had a nice
| run. /s
| cess11 wrote:
| Looks like two commits:
|
| https://github.com/linsomniac/ganeti/commit/e91766bfb42c6
| 7ab...
|
| https://github.com/linsomniac/ganeti/commit/f52f6d689c242
| e3e...
| linsomniac wrote:
| Thanks, I hadn't pushed from my test cluster, check
| again. "This branch is 12 commits ahead of, 4 commits
| behind ganeti/ganeti:master"
| amake wrote:
| None of this seems relevant to the original claim:
| "Software projects that somehow are 100% human developed
| will not be competitive with AI assisted or written
| projects"
|
| I don't feel like it's meaningful to discuss the
| "competitiveness" of a handful of bespoke local or
| internal tools.
| alganet wrote:
| All the features you mentioned are not coming from the
| AI.
|
| Here it is invoking the actual zfs commands:
|
| https://github.com/ganeti/ganeti/compare/master...linsomn
| iac...
|
| All the extra python boilerplate just makes it harder to
| understand IMHO.
| ziml77 wrote:
| I can't imagine they ever even looked at what they
| checked in, because it includes code that the LLM was
| using to investigate other code.
| amake wrote:
| > It's not obvious because people producing high quality
| stuff have no incentive at all to mark their changes as
| AI-generated
|
| I feel like we'd be hearing from business that crushed
| their competition by delivering faster or with fewer
| people. Where are those businesses?
|
| > But there are also local tools generated
|
| This is really not the same thing as the original claim
| ("Software projects that somehow are 100% human developed
| will not be competitive with AI assisted or written
| projects").
| bredren wrote:
| This is happening right now and it won't be obvious until
| the liquidity events provide enough cover for victory lap
| story telling.
|
| The very knowledge that an organization is experiencing
| hyper acceleration due to its successful adoption of AI
| across the enterprise is proprietary.
|
| There are no HBS case studies about businesses that
| successfully established and implemented strategic
| pillars for AI because the pillars were likely written in
| the past four months.
| amake wrote:
| > This is happening right now and it won't be obvious
| until
|
| I asked for evidence and, as always, lots of people are
| popping out of the woodwork to swear that it's true but I
| _can 't_ see the evidence yet.
|
| OK, then. Good luck with that.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _I feel like we 'd be hearing from business that
| crushed their competition by delivering faster or with
| fewer people. Where are those businesses?_
|
| As if tech part was the major part of getting the product
| to market.
|
| Those businesses are probably everywhere. They just
| aren't open about admitting they're using AI to speed up
| their marketing/product design/programming/project
| management/graphics design, because a) it's not normal
| outside some tech startup sphere to brag about how you're
| improving your _internal process_ , and b) because
| _almost everyone else is doing that too_ , so it
| partially cancels out - that is what competition on the
| market means, and c) admitting to use of AI in current
| climate is kind of a questionable PR move.
|
| WRT. those who fail to leverage the new tools and are
| destined to be outcompeted, this process takes extended
| time, because companies have inertia.
|
| >> _But there are also local tools generated_
|
| > _This is really not the same thing as the original
| claim_
|
| Point is that such wins compound. You get yak shaving
| done faster by fashioning your own tools on the fly, and
| it also cuts cost and a huge burden of _maintaining
| relationships with third parties_ [0]
|
| --
|
| [0] - Because each account you create, each subscription
| you take, even each online tool you kinda track and hope
| hope hope won't disappear on you - each such case comes
| with a cognitive tax of a business relationship you
| probably didn't want, that often costs you money
| directly, and that you need to keep track of.
| amake wrote:
| > Those businesses are probably everywhere. They just
| aren't open about admitting
|
| "Where's the evidence?" "Probably everywhere."
|
| OK, good luck, have fun
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Yup. Or, "Just look around!".
| amake wrote:
| If it was self-evident then I wouldn't need to ask for
| evidence. And I imagine you wouldn't need to be waving
| your hands making excuses for the lack of evidence.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| To me it's self-evident, but is probably one casual step
| removed from what you'd like to see. I can't point to
| specific finished or released projects that were
| substantially accelerated by use of GenAI[0]. But I can
| point out that nearly everyone I talked with in the last
| year, that does _any_ kind of white-collar job, is either
| afraid of LLMs, actively using LLMs at work and finding
| them very useful, or both.
|
| It's not possible for this level of impact at the bottom
| to make no change on the net near the top, so I propose
| that effects may be delayed and not immediately apparent.
| LLMs are still a new thing in business timelines.
|
| TL;DR: just wait a bit more.
|
| One thing I can hint at, but can't go into details, is
| that I personally know of at least one enterprise-grade
| project whose roadmap and scoping - and therefore,
| funding - is critically dependent on AI speeding up
| significant amount of development and devops tasks by at
| least 2-3x; that aspect is understood by both developers,
| managers, customers and investors, and not disputed.
|
| So, again: just wait a little longer.
|
| --
|
| [0] - Except maybe for Aider, whose author always posts
| how much of its own code Aider wrote in a given release;
| it's usually way above 50%.
| ben_w wrote:
| > One thing I can hint at, but can't go into details, is
| that I personally know of at least one enterprise-grade
| project whose roadmap and scoping - and therefore,
| funding - is critically dependent on AI speeding up
| significant amount of development and devops tasks by at
| least 2-3x; that aspect is understood by both developers,
| managers, customers and investors, and not disputed.
|
| Mm. I can now see why, in your other comment, you want to
| keep up with the SOTA.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| It's actually unrelated. I try to keep up with the SOTA
| because if I'm not using the current-best model, then
| each time I have a hard time with it or get poor results,
| I keep wondering if I'm just wasting my time fighting
| with something a stronger model would do without
| problems. It's a personal thing; I've been like this ever
| since I got API access to GPT-4.
|
| My use of LLMs isn't all that big, and I don't have any
| special early access or anything. It's just that the
| tokens are so cheap that, for casual personal and
| professional use, the pricing difference didn't matter.
| Switching to a stronger model meant that my average
| monthly bill went from $2 to $10 or something. These
| amounts were immaterial.
|
| Use patterns and pricing changes, though, and recently
| this made some SOTA models (notably o3, gpt-4.5 and the
| most recent Opus model) too expensive for my use.
|
| As for the project I referred to, let's put it this way:
| the reference point is what was SOTA ~2-3 months ago
| (Sonnet 3.7, Gemini 2.5 Pro). And the assumptions aren't
| just wishful thinking - they're based on actual
| experience with using these models (+ some tools) to
| speed up specific kind of work.
| fireflash38 wrote:
| Schroedingers AI. It's everywhere, but you can't point to
| it cause it's apparently indistinguishable from humans,
| except for the shitty AI which is just shitty AI.
|
| It's a thought terminating cliche.
| conartist6 wrote:
| And because from the outside everything looks worse than
| ever. Worse quality, no more support, established
| companies going crazy to cut costs. AI slop is replacing
| thoughtful content across the web. Engineering morale is
| probably at an all time low for my 20 years watching this
| industry...
|
| So my question is: if so many people should be bragging
| to me and celebrating how much better things are, why
| does it look to me like they are worse and everyone is
| miserable about it...?
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| I think in context of this discussion you might be
| confused about what the term "better" refers to.
|
| > _And because from the outside everything looks worse
| than ever. Worse quality, no more support, established
| companies going crazy to cut costs. AI slop is replacing
| thoughtful content across the web. Engineering morale is
| probably at an all time low for my 20 years watching this
| industry._
|
| That is true and present across the board. But consider,
| all of that is what "better" means to companies, and most
| of that is caused by actions that employers call
| _success_ and reward employees for.
|
| Our industry, in particular, is a stellar example - half
| of the things we make are making things worse; of the
| things that seem to make things better, half of them are
| actually making things worse, but it's not visible
| because of accounting trickery (e.g. specialized roles
| cut is legible to beancounters; the workload being
| diffused and dragging everyone else's productivity down
| is not).
|
| So yeah, AI is making things better for its users, but
| expect that what's "better" for the industry whose main
| product is automating people away from their jobs, is
| going to translate to a lot of misery down the line.
| guappa wrote:
| > They just aren't open about admitting they're using AI
| to speed up their marketing/product
| design/programming/project management/graphics design
|
| Sure... they'd hate to get money thrown at them from
| investors.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Did you notice that what companies say to investors and
| what they say to the public are usually entirely
| different things? When they get mixed up - especially
| when investor-bound information reaches general public -
| it's usually a bad day for the company.
| tomjen3 wrote:
| You are just not listening to the right places.
|
| fly.pieter.com made a fortune while he live vide coded it
| on Twitter. One made making a modern multiplayer game.
|
| Or Michael Luo, who got a legal notice after making a
| much cheaper app that did the same as docusign
| https://analyticsindiamag.com/ai-news-updates/vibe-coder-
| get...
|
| There are others, but if you have found a gold mine, why
| would you inform the world?
| fragmede wrote:
| We'll have to see how it pans out for Cloudflare. They
| published an oauth thing and all the prompts used to
| create it.
|
| https://github.com/cloudflare/workers-oauth-provider/
| luqtas wrote:
| that's like driving big personal vehicles and having a
| bunch of children and eating a bunch of meat and do nothing
| about because marine and terrestrial ecosystems weren't
| fully destroyed by global warming
| lynx97 wrote:
| Ahh, there you go, environmental activists outright
| saying having children is considered a crime against
| nature. Wonderful, you seem to hit a rather bad
| stereotype right on the head. What is next? Earth would
| be better of if humanity was eradicated?
| luqtas wrote:
| go inform yourself [0]
|
| 0: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/a
| a7541/...
| mcoliver wrote:
| 80-90% of Claude is now written by Claude
| 0x457 wrote:
| And whose lunch is it eating?
| rvnx wrote:
| Your lunch, the developers behind Claude are very rich
| and do not need their developer career since they have
| enough to retire
| amake wrote:
| Using AI tools make AI tools is not the impact _outside
| of the AI bubble_ that people are looking for.
| brahma-dev wrote:
| Cigarettes do not cause cancer.
| ben_w wrote:
| How can you tell which project is which?
|
| I mean, sure, there's plenty of devs who refuse to use AI,
| but how many projects rather than individuals are in each
| category?
|
| And is Microsoft "traditional"? I name them specifically
| because their CEO claims 20-30% of their new code is AI
| generated: https://techcrunch.com/2025/04/29/microsoft-ceo-
| says-up-to-3...
| blibble wrote:
| > #2 Software projects that somehow are 100% human developed
| will not be competitive with AI assisted or written projects
|
| "competitive", meaning: "most features/lines of code emitted"
| might matter to a PHB or Microsoft
|
| but has never mattered to open source
| alganet wrote:
| Quoting them:
|
| > The policy we set now must be for today, and be open to
| revision. It's best to start strict and safe, then relax.
|
| So, no need for the drama.
| A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote:
| I am of two minds of it having now seen both good coders
| augmented by AI and bad coders further diminished by it ( I
| would even argue its worse than stack overflow, because back
| then they would at least would have had to adjust code a
| little bit ).
|
| I am personally somewhere in the middle, just good enough to
| know I am really bad at this so I make sure that I don't
| contribute to anything that is actually important ( like QEMU
| ).
|
| But how many people recognize their own strengths and
| weaknesses? That is part of the problem and now we are
| proposing that even that modicum of self-regulation ( as
| flawed as it is ) be removed.
|
| FWIW, I hear you. I also don't have an answer. Just thinking
| out loud.
| rapind wrote:
| > If a project successfully excludes AI contributions (not
| clear how other than controlling contributions to a tight
| group of anti-AI fanatics), it's just going to be cloned, and
| the clones will leave it in the dust.
|
| Yeah I don't think so. But if it does then who cares? AI can
| just make a better QEMU at that point I guess.
|
| They aren't hurting anyone with this stance (except the AI
| hype lords), which I'm pretty sure isn't actually an anti-AI
| stance, but a pragmatic response to AI slop in its current
| state.
| basilgohar wrote:
| I feel like this is mostly proofless assertion. I'm aware
| what you hint at is happening, but the conclusions you arrive
| at are far from proven or even reasonable at this stage.
|
| For what it's worth, I think AI for code will arrive at a
| place like how other coding tools sit - hinting,
| intellisense, linting, maybe even static or dynamic analysis,
| but I doubt NOT using AI will be a critical asset to
| productivity.
|
| Someone else in the thread already mentioned it's a bit of an
| amplifier. If you're good, it can make you better, but if
| you're bad it just spreads your poor skills like a robot
| vacuum spreads animal waste.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| I think that was his point, the project full of bad
| developers isn't the competition. It is a peer whose skill
| matches yours and uses agents on top of that. By myself I
| am no match for myself + cline.
| Retric wrote:
| That's true in the short term. Longer term it's
| questionable as using AI tools heavily means you don't
| remember all the details creating a new form of technical
| debt.
| linsomniac wrote:
| Dude, have you ever looked at code you wrote 6 months ago
| and gone "What was the developer thinking?" ;-)
| ringeryless wrote:
| yes, constantly. I also don't remember much contextual
| domain info of a given section of code about 2 weeks into
| delving into some other part of the same app.
|
| So-called AI makes this worse.
|
| Let me remind you of gyms, now that humans have been
| saved of much manual activity...
| linsomniac wrote:
| >So-called AI makes this worse.
|
| The AI tooling is also really, really good at being able
| to piece together the code, the contextual domain, the
| documentation, the tests, the related issues/tickets, it
| could even take the change history into account, and be
| able to help refresh your memory of unfamiliar code in
| the context of bugs or new changes you are looking at
| making.
|
| Whether or not you go to the gym, you are probably going
| to want to use an excavator if you are going to dig a
| basement.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > So-called AI makes this worse.
|
| I think that needs actual testing. At what time distances
| is there an effect, and how big is it? Even if there is
| an effect, it could be small enough that a mild
| productivity boost from AI is more important.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| I don't need to remember much, really. I have tools for
| that.
|
| Really, _really_ good tools.
| otabdeveloper4 wrote:
| IMO LLMs are best when used as locally-run offline search
| engines. This is a clear and obvious disruptive technology.
|
| But we will need to get a lot better at finetuning first.
| People don't want generalist LLMs, they want "expert
| systems".
| danielbln wrote:
| Speak for yourself, I prefer generalist LLMs. Also, the
| bitter lesson of ML applies.
| XorNot wrote:
| A reasonable conclusion about this would simply be that the
| developers are saying "we're not merging anything which _you_
| can 't explain".
|
| Which is entirely reasonable. The trend of people say, on HN
| saying "I asked an LLM and this is what it said..." is
| infuriating.
|
| It's just an upfront declaration that if your answer to
| something is "it's what Claude thinks" then it's not getting
| merged.
| Filligree wrote:
| That's not what the policy says, however. You could be the
| world's most honest person, using Claude only to generate
| code you described to it in detail and fully understand,
| and would still be forbidden.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Regarding #1, at least in the mainframe/cloud model of hosted
| LLMs, the operators have a history of model prompts and
| outputs.
|
| For example, if using Copilot, Microsoft also has every
| commit ever made if the project is on GitHub.
|
| They could, theoretically, determine what did or didn't come
| out of their models and was integrated into source trees.
|
| Regarding #2 and #3, with relatively novel software like QEMU
| that models platforms that other open source software
| doesn't, LLMs might not be a good fit for contributions.
| Especially where emulation and hardware accuracy, timing,
| quirks, errata etc matter.
|
| For example, modeling a new architecture or emulating new
| hardware might have LLMs generating convincing looking
| nonsense. Similarly, integrating them with newly added and
| changing APIs like in kvm might be a poor choice for LLM use.
| safety1st wrote:
| It seems to me that the point in your first paragraph argues
| against your points #2 and #3.
|
| If a project allows AI generated contributions, there's a
| risk that they'll be flooded with low quality contributions
| that consume human time and resources to review, thus
| paralyzing the project - it'd be like if you tried to read
| and reply to every spam email you receive.
|
| So the argument goes that #2 and #3 will not materialize,
| blanket acceptance of AI contributions will not help projects
| become more competitive, it will actually slow them down.
|
| Personally I happen to believe that reality will converge
| somewhere in the middle, you can have a policy which says
| among other things "be measured in your usage of AI," you can
| put the emphasis on having contributors do other things like
| pass unit tests, and if someone gets spammy you can ban them.
| So I don't think AI is going to paralyze projects but I also
| think its role in effective software development is a bit
| narrower than a lot of people currently believe...
| devmor wrote:
| None of your claims here are based in factual assertion.
| These are unproven, wishful fantasies that may or may not be
| eventually true.
|
| No one should be evaluating or writing policy based on
| fantasy.
| brabel wrote:
| Are you familiar with the futures market? It's all about
| what you call fantasy ! Similarly, if you are determining
| the strategy of your organization, all you have to help you
| is "fantasy". By the time evidence exists in sufficient
| quantity your lunch has already been eaten long ago. A good
| CEO is one that can see where the market is going before
| anyone else. You may be right that AI is just a fad , but
| given how much the big companies and all the major startups
| in the last few years are investing on it, it's
| overwhelmingly a fringe position to have at this point.
| devmor wrote:
| Both the futures market and resource planning are based
| on evidential standards (usually). When you make those
| decisions without any reasoning, you are _gambling_ , and
| might as well go to the casino.
|
| But notably, FOSS development is neither a corporation or
| stock trading. It is focused on longevity and
| maintainability.
| otabdeveloper4 wrote:
| > Software projects that somehow are 100% human developed
| will not be competitive with AI assisted or written projects.
|
| There is zero evidence so far that AI improves software
| developer efficiency.
|
| No, just because you had fun vibing with a chatbot doesn't
| mean you delivered the end product faster. All of the
| supposed AI software development gains are entirely self-
| reported based on "vibes". (Remember these are the same
| people who claimed massive developer efficiency gains from
| programming in Haskell or Lisp a few years back.)
|
| Note I'm not even touching on the tech debt issue here, but
| it is also important.
|
| P.S. The hallucination and counting to five problems will
| never go away. They are intrinsic to the LLM approach.
| gadders wrote:
| I am guessing they don't need people to prove that
| contributions didn't contain AI code, they just need the
| contributor to say they didn't use any AI code. That way, if
| any AI code is found in their contribution the liability lies
| with the contributor (but IANAL).
| graemep wrote:
| AFAIK in most places it might help with the amount of
| damages, but does not let you off the hook.
| conartist6 wrote:
| #2 is a complete and total fallacy, trivially disprovable.
|
| Overall velocity doesn't come from writing a lot more code,
| or even from writing code especially quickly.
| kylereeve wrote:
| > #2 Software projects that somehow are 100% human developed
| will not be competitive with AI assisted or written projects.
| The only room for debate on that is an apocalypse level
| scenario where humans fail to continue producing
| semiconductors or electricity.
|
| ??
|
| "AI" code generators are still mostly overhyped nonsense that
| generate incorrect code all the time.
| furyofantares wrote:
| Much of that may be true in the (near) future but it also
| makes sense for people to make decisions that apply right
| now, and update as the future comes along.
| koolala wrote:
| This is a win for MIT license though.
| graemep wrote:
| From what point of view?
|
| For someone using MIT licensed code for training, it still
| requires a copy of the license and the copyright notice in
| "copies or substantial portions of the software". SO I guess
| its fine for a snippet, but if the AI reproduces too much of
| it, then its in breach.
|
| From the point of view of someone who does not want their
| code used by an LLM then using GPL code is more likely to be
| a breach.
| Thorrez wrote:
| Is there any likelihood that the output of the model would be
| public domain? Even if the model itself is public domain, the
| prompt was created by a human and impacted the output, so I
| don't see how the output could be public domain. And then after
| that, the output was hopefully reviewed by the original
| prompting human and likely reviewed by another human during
| code review, leading to more human impact on the final code.
| AndrewDucker wrote:
| There is no copyright in AI art. Presumably the same
| reasoning would apply to AI code:
| https://iclg.com/news/22400-us-court-confirms-ai-
| generated-a...
| lars_francke wrote:
| This particular case is US only.
|
| The rest of the world might decide differently.
| AndrewDucker wrote:
| Absolutely.
|
| And as long as you're not worried about people in the USA
| reusing your code then you're all good!
| graemep wrote:
| Proprietary source code would not usually end up training LLMs.
| Unless its leaked, how would an LLM have access to it?
|
| > it would require speculative copyright owners to disassemble
| their binaries
|
| I wonder whether AI might be a useful tool for making that
| easier.
|
| If you have evidence then you can get courts to order
| disclosure or examination of code.
|
| > And plenty of proprietary software has public domain code in
| it already.
|
| I am pretty sure there is a significant amount of proprietary
| code that has FOSS code in it, against license terms
| (especially GPL and similar).
|
| A lot of proprietary code is now been written using AIs trained
| on FOSS code, and companies are open about this. It might open
| an interesting can of worms.
| physicsguy wrote:
| > Unless its leaked
|
| Given the number of people on HN that say they're using for
| e.g. Cursor, OpenAI, etc. through work, and my experience
| with workplaces saying 'absolutely you can't use it', I
| suspect a large amount is being leaked.
| graemep wrote:
| I thought most of these did not use users context and input
| for training?
| pmlnr wrote:
| Licence incompatibility is enough.
| strogonoff wrote:
| People sometimes miss that copyleft is powered by copyright.
| Copyleft (which means Linux, Blender, and plenty of other
| goodness) needs the ability to impose some rules on what users
| do with your work, presumably in the interest of common good.
| Such ability implies IP ownership.
|
| This does not mean that powerful interests abusing copyright
| with ever increasing terms and enforcement overreach is fair
| game. It harms common interest.
|
| However, it _does_ mean that abusing copyright from the other
| side and denouncing the core ideas of IP ownership--which is
| now sort of in the interest of certain companies (and capital
| heavily invested in certain fashionable but not yet profitable
| startups) based around IP expropriation--harms common interest
| just as well.
| ben_w wrote:
| While this is a generally true statement (and has echoes in
| other areas like sovereign citizens), GenAI may make
| copyright (and copyleft) economically redundant.
|
| While the AI we have now is not good enough to make an entire
| operating system when asked*, if/when they can, the benefits
| of all the current licensing models evaporate, and it doesn't
| matter if that model is proprietary with no source, or GPL,
| or MIT, because by that point anyone else can reproduce your
| OS for whatever the cost of tokens is without ever touching
| your code.
|
| But as we're not there yet, I agree with @benlivengood that
| (most**) OSS projects must treat GenAI code as if it's
| unusable.
|
| * At least, not a modern OS. I've not tried getting any model
| to output a tiny OS that would fit in a C64, and while I
| doubt they can currently do this, it is a bet I might lose,
| whereas I am confident all models would currently fail at
| e.g. reproducing Windows XP.
|
| ** I think MIT licensed projects can probably use GenAI code,
| they're not trying to require derivatives to follow the same
| licence, but I'm not a lawyer and this is just my barely
| informed opinion from reading the licenses.
| strogonoff wrote:
| I have a few sociophilosophical quibbles about the impact
| of this, but to focus on a practical part:
|
| > by that point anyone else can reproduce your OS for
| whatever the cost of tokens is without ever touching your
| code.
|
| Do you think that the cost of tokens will remain low enough
| once these companies for now operating at loss have to be
| profitable, and it really is going to be "anyone else"? Or,
| would it be limited to "big tech" or select few
| corporations who can pay a non-trivial amount of money to
| them?
|
| Do you think it would mean they essentially sell GPL'ed
| code for proprietary use? Would it not affect FOSS, which
| has been till now partially powered by the promise to
| contributors that their (often voluntary) work would remain
| for public benefit?
|
| Do you think someone would create and make public (and
| gather so much contributor effort) something on the scale
| Linux, if they knew that it would be open to be scraped by
| an intermediary who can sell it at whatever price they
| choose to set to companies that then are free to call it
| their own and repackage commercially without contributing
| back, providing _their_ source or crediting the original
| authors in any way?
| Pet_Ant wrote:
| > Do you think that the cost of tokens will remain low
| enough once these companies for now operating at loss
| have to be profitable
|
| New techniques are coming, new hardware processes are
| being developed, and the incremental unit cost is low.
| Once they fill up the labs, they'll start selling to
| consumers till the price becomes the cost of a bucket of
| sand and the cost to power a light-bulb.
| ben_w wrote:
| > Do you think that the cost of tokens will remain low
| enough once these companies for now operating at loss
| have to be profitable, and it really is going to be
| "anyone else"? Or, would it be limited to "big tech" or
| select few corporations who can pay a non-trivial amount
| of money to them?
|
| When considering current models, it's not in their power
| to prevent it:
|
| DeepSeek demonstrated big models could be trained very
| easily for a modest budget, and inference is mostly
| constrained by memory access rather than compute, so if
| we had smartphones with a terabyte of RAM with a very
| high bandwidth to something like a current generation
| Apple NPU, things like DeepSeek R1 would run locally at
| (back-of-the-envelope calculation) about real-time -- and
| drain the battery in half an hour if you used that model
| continuously.
|
| But current models are not good enough, so the real
| question is: "who will hold what power when such models
| hypothetically are created?", and I have absolutely no
| idea.
|
| > Do you think someone would create and make public (and
| gather so much contributor effort) something on the scale
| Linux, if they knew that it would be open to be scraped
| by an intermediary who can sell it at whatever price they
| choose to set to companies that then are free to call it
| their own and repackage commercially without contributing
| back, providing their source or crediting the original
| authors in any way?
|
| Consider it differently: how much would it cost to use an
| LLM to reproduce all of Linux?
|
| I previously rough-estimated that at $230/megatoken of
| (useful final product) output, an AI would be energy-
| competitive vs. humans consuming calories to live:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44304186
|
| As I don't have specifics, I need to Fermi-estimate this:
|
| I'm not actually sure how big any OS (with or without
| apps) is, but I hear a lot of numbers in the range of
| 10-50 million. Let's say 50 Mloc.
|
| I don't know the tokens per line, I'm going to guess 10.
|
| 50e6 lines * 10 tokens/line * $230/(1e6 tokens) =
| $115,000
|
| There's no fundamental reason for $230/megatoken beyond
| that's when the AI is economically preferable to feeding
| a human who is doing it for free and you just need to
| stop them from starving to death, even if you have
| figured out how to directly metabolise electricity which
| is much cheaper than food: on the one hand $230, this is
| on the very expensive end of current models; on the
| second hand, see previous point about running DeepSeek R1
| on phone processor with more RAM and bandwidth to match;
| on the third hand*, see other previous point that current
| models just aren't good enough to bother.
|
| So it's current not available at any price, but when the
| quality is good, even charging a rate that's currently
| expensive makes all humans unemployable.
|
| * Insert your own joke about about off-by-one-errors
| olalonde wrote:
| Seems like a fake problem. Who would sue QEMU for using AI-
| generated code? OpenAI? Anthropic?
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Anyone whose code is in a used model's training set.*
|
| This is about future existential tail risk, not current risk.
|
| * Depending on future court decisions in different
| jurisdictions
| olalonde wrote:
| Again, seems so implausible that it's not worth worrying
| about.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Were you around for SCO? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/
| Timeline_of_SCO%E2%80%93Linu...
|
| IP disputes aren't trivial, especially for shoestring-
| funded OSS.
| consp wrote:
| It is implausible until it isn't and qemu is taking a
| very cheap and easy step to outright ban it and covering
| their ass just in case. The threat is low plausibility
| but high risk and thus a valid one to consider.
| olalonde wrote:
| I disagree. Open source projects routinely deal with far
| greater risk, like employees contributing open source
| code on company time without explicit authorization. Yet
| they generally allow code from anyone without much
| verification (some have a contributor agreement but it's
| based on trust, there's no actual verification). I stand
| by my 2022 prediction[0]: no one will get sued for using
| LLM-generated code.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31849027
| stronglikedan wrote:
| To me, AI doesn't generate code by itself, so there's no
| difference between the outputted code or code written by the
| human that prompted it. As well, the humans that prompt it are
| solely responsible for making sure it is correct, and solely to
| blame for any negative outcomes of its use, just as if they had
| written it themselves.
| hughw wrote:
| I'd hope there could be some distinction between using LLM as a
| super autocomplete in your IDE, vs giving it high-level
| guidelines and making it generate substantive code. It's a gray
| area, sure, but if I made a contribution I'd want to be able to
| use the labor-saving feature of Copilot, say, without danger of
| it copying an algorithm from open source code. For example, today
| I generated a series of case statements and Copilot detected the
| pattern and saved me tons of typing.
| dheera wrote:
| That and also just AI glasses that become an extension of my
| mind and body, just giving me clues and guidance on everything
| I do including what's on my screen.
|
| I see those glasses as becoming just a part of me, just like my
| current dumb glasses are a part of me that enables me to see
| better, the smart glasses will help me to see AND think better.
|
| My brain was trained on a lot of proprietary code as well, the
| copyright issues around AI models are pointless western NIMBY
| thinking and will lead to the downfall of western civilization
| if they keep pursuing legal what-ifs as an excuse to reject
| awesome technology.
| mattl wrote:
| I'm interested to see how this plays out. I'd like a similar
| policy for my projects, but also a similar policy/T&C that
| prohibits the crawling of the content too.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| Only way to prohibit crawling is to go back to invite only,
| probably self-hosted repositories. These companies have no
| shame, your T&Cs won't mean anything to them and you have no
| way of proving they violated them without some kind of
| discovery into their training data.
| acedTrex wrote:
| Oh hey, the thing I predicted in my blog titled "yes i will judge
| you for using AI" happened lol
|
| Basically I think open source has traditionally HEAVILY relied on
| hidden competency markers to judge the quality of incoming
| contributions. LLMs throw that entire concept on its head by
| presenting code that has competent markers but none of the
| backing experience. It is a very very jarring experience for
| experienced individuals.
|
| I suspect that virtual or in person meetings and other forms of
| social proof independent of the actual PR will become far more
| crucial for making inroads in large projects in the future.
| SchemaLoad wrote:
| I've started seeing this at work with coworkers using LLMs to
| generate code reviews. They submit comments which are way above
| their skill level which almost trick you in to thinking they
| are correct since only a very skilled developer would make
| these suggestions. And then ultimately you end up wasting tons
| of time proving how these suggestions are wrong. Spending far
| more time than the person pasting the suggestions spent to
| generate them.
| acedTrex wrote:
| Yep 100%, it is something I have also observed. Frankly has
| been frustrating to the point I spun up a quick one off html
| site to rant/get my thoughts out.
| https://jaysthoughts.com/aithoughts1
| whatevertrevor wrote:
| Just some feedback: your site is hard to read on mobile
| devices because of the sidebar.
| acedTrex wrote:
| Thank you, I'll get that fixed.
|
| Edit: Mobile should be fixed now
| diabllicseagull wrote:
| funny enough I had coworkers who similarly had a hold of the
| jargon but without any substance. They would always turn out
| to be time sinks for others doing the useful work. AI
| imitating that type of drag on the workplace is kinda funny
| ngl.
| heisenbit wrote:
| Probabilistic patterns stringed together are something
| different from an end-to-end intention driven solidly
| linked chain of thought that is with pylons grounded in
| relevant context at critical points.
| Groxx wrote:
| By far the largest review-effort PRs of my career have been
| in the past year, due to mid-sized LLM-built features.
| Multiple rounds of other signoffs saying "lgtm" with only
| minor style comments only for me to finally read it and see
| that no, it is not even _remotely_ acceptable and we have
| several uses _built by the same team_ that would fail
| immediately if it was merged, to say nothing of the thousands
| of other users that might also be affected. Stuff the
| reviewers have experience with and didn 't think about
| because they got stuck in the "looks plausible" rut, rather
| than "is correct".
|
| So it goes back for changes. It returns the next day with
| complete rewrites of large chunks. More "lgtm" from others.
| More incredibly obvious flaws, race conditions, the works.
|
| And then round three repeats mistakes that came up in round
| one, because LLMs don't learn.
|
| This is not a future style of work that I look forward to
| participating in.
| tobyhinloopen wrote:
| I think a future with LLM coding requires much more tests,
| both testing happy and bad flows.
| danielbln wrote:
| It also needs proper guideline enforcement. If an
| engineer produces poorly tested and unreviewed code, then
| the buck stops with them. This is a human problem more
| than it is a tool problem.
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| I think the issue is with people taking mental shortcuts
| and thus no longer properly thinking about design
| decisions and the bigger picture in terms of concepts of
| the software.
| beej71 wrote:
| I'm not really in the field any longer, but one of my
| favorite things to do with LLMs is ask for code reviews. I
| usually end up learning something new. And a good 30-50% of
| the suggestions are useful. Which actually isn't skillful
| enough to give it a title of "code reviewer", so I certainly
| wouldn't foist the suggestions on someone else.
| mrheosuper wrote:
| People keep telling LLM will improve efficiency, but your
| comment has proved it's the otherwise.
|
| It look like LLM is not good for cooperation, because the
| nature of LLM is randomness.
| itsmekali321 wrote:
| send your blog link please
| acedTrex wrote:
| https://jaysthoughts.com/aithoughts1 Bit of a rambly rant,
| but the prediction stuff I was tongue in cheek referring to
| above is at the bottom.
| mattmanser wrote:
| Looks like your blog post got submitted here and then I
| assume triggered the flame war flag. A lot of people just
| reading the title and knee jerking in the comments:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44384610
|
| Funny, as the entire thing starts off with "Now, full
| disclosure, the title is a bit tongue-in-cheek.".
| acedTrex wrote:
| I suppose I did bring that on myself with the title
| didn't I. I believe I have fixed the site for mobile so
| hopefully some of those thread complaints have been
| rectified.
| stevage wrote:
| > Basically I think open source has traditionally HEAVILY
| relied on hidden competency markers to judge the quality of
| incoming contributions.
|
| Yep, and it's not just code. Student essays, funding
| applications, internal reports, fiction, art...everything that
| AI touches has this problem that AI outputs look superficially
| similar to the work of experts.
| whatevertrevor wrote:
| I have learned over time that the actually smart people worth
| listening to, avoid jargon beyond what is strictly necessary,
| talk in simple terms with specific goals/improvements/changes
| in mind.
|
| If I'm having to reread something over and over to understand
| what they're even trying to accomplish, odds are it's either
| AI generated or an attempt at sounding smart instead of being
| constructive.
| danielbln wrote:
| Trajectory so far has been that AI outputs are converging
| increasingly not just in superficial similarity but also
| quality of expert output. We are obviously not there yet, and
| some might say we never will. But if we do, there is a whole
| new conversation to be had.
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| I suspect that there are at least 1 or 2 more significant
| discoveries in terms of architecture and general way of
| models working, before these things become actual experts.
| Maybe they will never get there and we will discover how to
| better incorporate facts and reasoning, rather than just
| ingesting billions of training data points.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Would it make sense to include the complete prompt that generated
| the code with the code?
| astrobiased wrote:
| It would need to be more than that. A prompt for one model can
| have different results vs another. Even when the model has
| different treatment for inference, eg quantization, the same
| prompt for the unquantized and quantized model could differ.
| verdverm wrote:
| Even more so, when you come back to understand in a few
| years, the model will no longer be available
| galangalalgol wrote:
| One of several reasons to use an open model even if it
| isn't quite as good. Version control the models and commit
| the prompts with the model name and a hash of the
| parameters. I'm not really sure what value that
| reproducibility adds though.
| catlifeonmars wrote:
| You'd need to hash the model weights and save the seeds for the
| temperature prng as well, in order to verify the provenance.
| Ideally it would be reproducible, right?
| danielbln wrote:
| Maybe 2 years ago. Nowadays LLMs call functions and use
| tools, good luck capturing that in a way that it's
| reproducible.
| ethan_smith wrote:
| Including prompts would create transparency but still wouldn't
| resolve the underlying copyright uncertainty of the output or
| guarantee the code wasn't trained on incompatibly-licensed
| material.
| Aeolun wrote:
| This seems absolutely impossible to enforce. All my editors give
| me AI assisted code hints. Zed, cursor, VS code. All of them now
| show me autocomplete that comes from an LLM. There's absolutely
| no distinction between that code, and code that I've typed out
| myself.
|
| It's like complaining that I may have no legal right to submit my
| stick figure because I potentially copied it from the drawing of
| another stick figure.
|
| I'm firmly convinced that these policies are only written to have
| plausible deniability when stuff with generated code gets
| inevitably submitted anyway. There's no way the people that write
| these things aren't aware they're completely unenforceable.
| luispauloml wrote:
| > I'm firmly convinced that these policies are only written to
| have plausible deniability when stuff with generated code gets
| inevitably submitted anyway.
|
| Of course it is. And nobody said otherwise, because that is
| explicitly stated on the commit message:
| [...] More broadly there is, as yet, no broad consensus
| on the licensing implications of code generators
| trained on inputs under a wide variety of licenses
|
| And in the patch itself: [...] With AI
| content generators, the copyright and license status of the
| output is ill-defined with no generally accepted,
| settled legal foundation.
|
| What other commenters pointed out is that, beyond the legal
| issue, other problems also arise form the use of AI-generated
| code.
| teeray wrote:
| It's like the seemingly-confusing gates passing through
| customs that say "nothing to declare" when you've already
| made your declarations. Walking through that gate is a
| conscious act that places culpability on you, so you can't
| simply say "oh, I forgot" or something.
|
| The thinking here is probably similar: if AI-generated code
| becomes poisonous and is detected in a project, the DCO could
| allow shedding liability onto the contributor that said it
| wasn't AI-generated.
| Filligree wrote:
| > Of course it is. And nobody said otherwise, because that is
| explicitly stated on the commit message
|
| Don't be ridiculous. The majority of people are in fact
| honest, and won't submit such code; the major effect of the
| policy is to prevent those contributions.
|
| Then you get plausible deniability for code submitted by
| villains, sure, but I'd like to hope that's rare.
| raincole wrote:
| I think most people don't make money by submitting code to
| QEMU, so there isn't that much incentive to cheat.
| shmerl wrote:
| Neovim doesn't force you to use AI, unless you configure it
| yourself. If your editor doesn't allow you to switch it off,
| there must be a big problem with it.
| sysmax wrote:
| I wish people would make distinction regarding the size/scope of
| the AI-generated parts. Like with video copyright laws, where a
| 5-second clip from a copyrighted movie is usually considered fair
| use and not frowned upon.
|
| Because for projects like QEMU, current AI models can actually do
| mind-boggling stuff. You can give it a PDF describing an
| instruction set, and it will generate you wrapper classes for
| emulating particular instructions. Then you can give it one class
| like this and a few paragraphs from the datasheet, and it will
| spit out unit tests checking that your class works as the CPU
| vendor describes.
|
| Like, you can get from 0% to 100% test coverage several orders of
| magnitude faster than doing it by hand. Or refactoring, where you
| want to add support for a particular memory virtualization trick,
| and you need to update 100 instruction classes based on straight-
| forward, but not 100% formal rule. A human developer would be
| pulling their hairs out, while an LLM will do it faster than you
| can get a coffee.
| echelon wrote:
| Qemu can make the choice to stay in the "stone age" if they
| want. Contributors who prefer AI assistance can spend their
| time elsewhere.
|
| It might actually be prudent for some (perhaps many
| foundational) OSS projects to reject AI until the full legal
| case law precedent has been established. If they begin taking
| contributions and we find out later that courts find this is in
| violation of some third party's copyright (as shocking as that
| outcome may seem), that puts these projects in jeopardy. And
| they certainly do not have the funding or bandwidth to avoid
| litigation. Or to handle a complete rollback to pre-AI
| background states.
| 762236 wrote:
| It sounds like you're saying someone could rewrite Qemu on
| their own, with the help of AI. That would be pretty funny.
| mrheosuper wrote:
| Given enough time, a monkey randomly types on typewriter can
| rewrite QEMU.
| halostatue wrote:
| Not all jurisdictions are the US, and not all jurisdictions
| allow fair use, but instead have specific fair dealing laws.
| Not all jurisdictions have fair dealing laws, meaning that
| _every_ use has to be cleared.
|
| There are simple algorithms that everyone will implement the
| same way down to the variable names, but aside from those
| fairly rare exceptions, there's no "maximum number of lines"
| metric to describe how much code is "fair use" regardless of
| the licence of the code "fair use"d in your scenario.
|
| Depending on the context, even in the US that 5-second clip
| _would not pass fair use doctrine muster_. If I made a new film
| cut _entirely_ from five second clips of different movies and
| tried a fair use doctrine defence, I would likely never see the
| outside of a courtroom for the rest of my life. If I tried to
| do so with licensing, I would probably pay more than it cost to
| make all those movies.
|
| Look up the decisions over the last two decades over sampling
| (there are albums from the late 80s and 90s -- when sampling
| was relatively new -- which will never see another pressing or
| release because of these decisions). The musicians and
| producers who chose the samples thought they would be covered
| by fair use.
| naveed125 wrote:
| Coolest thing I've seen today.
| pretoriusdre wrote:
| AI generated code is generally pretty good and incredibly fast.
|
| Seeing this new phenomenon must be difficult for those people who
| have spent a long time perfecting their craft. Essentially, they
| might feel that their skillsets are being undermined. It would be
| especially hard for people who associate a lot of their self-
| identity with their job.
|
| Being a purist is noble, but I think that this stance is foolish.
| Essentially, people who chose not to use AI code tools will be
| overtaken by the people who do. That's the unfortunate reality.
| loktarogar wrote:
| It's not a stance about the merits of AI generated code but
| about the legal status of it, in terms of who owns it and
| related concepts.
| pretoriusdre wrote:
| Yes the reasoning behind the decision is clear and as you
| described. But I would also make the point that the decision
| also comes with certain consequences, to which a discussion
| about merits is directly relevant.
| loktarogar wrote:
| > Essentially, people who chose not to use AI code tools
| will be overtaken by the people who do. That's the
| unfortunate reality.
|
| Who is going to "overtake" QEMU, what exactly does that
| mean, and what will it matter if they are?
| danielbln wrote:
| OP said people. QEMU is not people.
| loktarogar wrote:
| We're talking about a decision that the people behind
| QEMU made that affects people, to which the consequences
| of made the discussion of merits "directly relevant".
|
| If we're talking about something that neither involving
| QEMU nor the people behind it, where is the relevance?
| It's just a rant on AI at that point.
| N1H1L wrote:
| I use LLMs for generating documentation- I write my code, and ask
| Claude to write my documentation
| auggierose wrote:
| I think you are doing it the wrong way around.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Maybe not. I trust Claude to write docs. I don't trust it to
| write my code the way I want.
| jssjsnj wrote:
| Oi
| abhisek wrote:
| > It's best to start strict and safe, then relax.
|
| Makes total sense.
|
| I am just wondering how do we differentiate between AI generated
| code and human written code that is influenced or copied from
| some unknown source. The same licensing problem may happen with
| human code as well especially for OSS where anyone can
| contribute.
|
| Given the current usage, I am not sure if AI generated code has
| an identity of its own. It's really a tool in the hand of a
| human.
| catlifeonmars wrote:
| > Given the current usage, I am not sure if AI generated code
| has an identity of its own. It's really a tool in the hand of a
| human.
|
| It's a power saw. A really powerful tool that can be dangerous
| if used improperly. In that sense the code generator can have
| more or less of a mind of its own depending on the wielder.
|
| Ok I think I've stretched the analogy to the breaking point...
| b0a04gl wrote:
| there's no audit trail for how most code gets shaped anyway we're
| teammate's intuition from a past outage a one-liner from some old
| jira ticket even the shape of a func pulled from habit none of
| that is reviewable but still it gets trusted lol
|
| ai moves faster than group consensus this ban won't slow down the
| tech it'll may make paradigms like qemu harder to enter harder to
| scale, harder to test thru properly
|
| so if we maintain code like this we gotta know the trade we're
| making we're preserving trust but limiting throughput maybe fine
| idk but don't confuse it as future proofing
|
| i kinda feel it does exposes trust in oss is social not
| epistemic. we accept complex things if we know who dropped it and
| we reject clean things if it smells synthetic
|
| so the real qn isn't > did we use ai? it's > can we even maintain
| this in 6mo? and if the answer's yes doesn't really matter who
| produced the code fr
| caleblloyd wrote:
| Signed by mostly people at RedHat, which is owned by IBM, which
| makes Watson, which beat humans in Jeopardy in 2011.
|
| > These are early days of AI-assisted software development.
|
| Are they? Or is this just IBM destroying another acquisition
| slowly.
|
| Meanwhile the Dotnet Runtime is fully embracing AI. Which people
| on the outside may laugh at but you have extremely talented
| engineers like Stephen Toub and David Fowler advocating for it.
|
| So enterprises: next time you have an IBM rep trying to sell you
| AI services, do yourself a favor and go to any other number of
| companies out there who are actually serious about helping you
| build for the future.
|
| And since I am a North Carolina native, here's to hoping IBM and
| RedHat get their stuff together.
| bgwalter wrote:
| It is interesting to read the pro-AI rant in the comments on the
| linked commit. The person who is threatening to use "AI" anyway
| has almost no contributions either in qemu or on GitHub in
| general.
|
| This is the target group for code generators. All talk but no
| projects.
| ludicrousdispla wrote:
| >> The tools will mature, and we can expect some to become safely
| usable in free software projects.
|
| It should be possible to build a useful AI code generator for a
| given programming language solely from the source code for the
| language itself. Doing so however would require some maturity.
| zoobab wrote:
| BigTech now control Qemu?
|
| "Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@redhat.com>
| Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Stefan
| Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Alex Bennee
| <alex.bennee@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster
| <armbru@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi
| <stefanha@redhat.com>"
| wlkr wrote:
| qq
| incomingpain wrote:
| Using AI code generators. I have been able to get the code base
| large enough that it was starting to make nonsense changes.
|
| However, my overall experience I have been thinking about how
| this is going to be a massive boon to open source. So many
| patches, so many new tools will be created to streamline getting
| new packages into repos. Everything can be tested.
|
| Open source is going to be epicly boosted now.
|
| QEMU deciding to sit out from this acceleration is crazy to me,
| but probably what is going to give Xen/Docker/Podman the lead.
| flerchin wrote:
| I suppose the practical effect will be that contributors who use
| AI will have to defend their code as if they did not. To me, this
| implies more ownership of the code and deep understanding of it.
| This exchange happens fairly often in PRs I'm involved with:
|
| "Why did you do this insane thing?"
|
| "IDK, claude suggested it and it works."
| UrineSqueegee wrote:
| if AI using books to train isn't copyright infringement then the
| outputted code isn't copyrighted material either
| tqwhite wrote:
| I don't blame them for worrying about it. The policy should not
| be to forbid it but make sure you don't leave artifacts because I
| guarantee, people are going to use a bot to write their code.
| Hell, in six months, I doubt you will be able to get a code
| editor that doesn't use AI for code completion at least.
|
| Also, AI coded programs will be copyrightable just like the old
| days. You think the big corps are going to both not use bot
| coding and give up ownership of their code? Fat chance.
|
| Remember the Micky Mouse copyright extension? If the courts
| aren't sensible, we will have one of those the next day.
|
| The old days ended very abruptly this time.
| randomNumber7 wrote:
| I mean for low level C code the current LLMs are not that helpful
| anyway.
|
| On the other hand I am 100% sure that every company that doesn't
| use LLMs will be out of business in 10 years.
| randomNumber7 wrote:
| I know a secret. You can read the code the AI generated for you
| and check if it is what you want to do. It is still faster than
| writing it yourself most of the time.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-26 23:01 UTC)