4 ms·

I wouldn't say they were dismissive of AI, just that they are unwilling to merge code that they don't have the time or motivation to review. If you want AI cod

I wouldn't say they were dismissive of AI, just that they are unwilling to merge code that they don't have the time or motivation to review. If you want AI code merged, make it small so it it's an easy review. That being said, I completely understand being unwilling to merge AI code at all.

joelreymont 10mo ago
Why would you be unwilling to merge AI code at all? Consider my other PR against the Zig compiler [1]... I was careful to make it small and properly document it but there's a strict anti-AI policy for Zig and they closed the PR. Why? Is it not small? Not carefully documented? Is there no value it int? I'm not complaining or arguing for justice. I'm genuinely interested in how people think in this instance. If the sausage looks good and tastes great, and was made observing the proper health standards, do you still care how the sausage was made?! [1] https://github.com/joelreymont/zig/pull/1 https://github.com/joelreymont/zig/pull/1 [2] https://ziggit.dev/t/bug-wrong-segment-ordering-for-macos-using-the-non-llvm-arm64-backend/13221 https://ziggit.dev/t/bug-wrong-segment-ordering-for-macos-us...
- heavyset_go 10mo ago
  > Why would you be unwilling to merge AI code at all? Because AI code cannot be copyrighted. It is not anyone's IP. That matters when you're creating IP. edit: Assuming this is a real person I'm responding to, and this isn't just a marketing gimmick, having seen the trail you've left on the internet over the past few weeks, it strikes me of mania, possibly chatbot-induced. I don't know what I can say that could help, so I'm dropping out of this conversation and wish you the best.
  - kcexn 10mo ago
    This is a position that seems to be as unenforceable as AI can't be trained on code whose copyright owners have not given consent. The main reason for being unwilling to merge AI code is going to be that it sets a precedent that AI code is acceptable. Suddenly, maintainers need to be able to make judgement calls on a case-by-case basis of what constitutes an acceptable AI contribution, and AI is going to be able to generate far more slop than people will ever have the time to review and agree upon.
    - PunchyHamster 10mo ago
      > This is a position that seems to be as unenforceable as AI can't be trained on code whose copyright owners have not given consent. Stares at facebook stealing terabytes of copyrighted content to train their models Also, even if code is trained only on FLOSS approved licenses, GPL based ones have some caveats that would disqualify many projects with including code
    - heavyset_go 10mo ago
      > This is a position that seems to be as unenforceable as AI can't be trained on code whose copyright owners have not given consent. This depends on what courts find, at least one non-precedent setting case found model training on basically everyone's IP without permission to be fair use. If it's fair use, consent isn't needed, licenses don't matter and the only way to prevent training on your content is to withhold it and gate it behind contracts that forfeit your clients' rights to fair use. But that is beside the point, even if what you claim was the case, my point is that AI output isn't property. It's not property whether its training corpus was full of licensed or unlicensed content. This is what the US Copyright Office determined. If you include AI output in your product, that part of it isn't yours. It isn't anybody's, so anyone can copy it and anyone can do whatever they want with it, including the AI/cloud providers you allowed your code to get slurped up to as context to LLMs. You want to own your IP, you don't want to say "we own 30% of the product we wrote, but 70% of it is non-property that anyone can copy/use/sell with no strings attached, even open source licenses". This matters if you're building a business or open source project. If you include AI code in your open source project, that part of the project isn't covered by your license. LLMs can't sign CLAs and they can't produce intellectual property that can be licensed or owned. The more of your project that is developed by AI, the more it is not yours, and the more of it cannot be covered by your open source license of choice.
      - cesarb 10mo ago
        > This is what the US Copyright Office determined. There are hundreds of countries in the world. Whatever the "US Copyright Office" determines, applies to only one of them.
- whilenot-dev 10mo ago
  > Why would you be unwilling to merge AI code at all? Are you leaving the third-party aspect out of your question on purpose? Not GP but for me, it pretty much boils down to the comment from Mason[0]: "If I wanted an LLM to generate [...] unreviewed code [...], I could do it myself." To put it bluntly, everybody can generate code via LLMs and writing code isn't what defines the dominant work of an existing project anymore, as the write/verify-balance shifts to become verify-heavy. Who's better equipped to verify generated code than the maintainers themselves? Instead of prompting LLMs for a feature, one could request the desired feature from the maintainers in the issue tracker and let them decide whether they want to generate the code via LLMs or not, discuss strategies etc. Whether the maintainers will use their time for reviews should remain their choice, and their choice only - anyone besides the maintainers should have no say in this. There's also the cultural problem where the review efforts are non-/underrepresented in any contemporary VCS, and the amount of merged code grants for a higher authority over a repository than any time spent doing reviews or verification (the Linux kernel might be an exception here?). We might need to rethink that approach moving forward. [0]: https://discourse.julialang.org/t/ai-generated-enhancements-and-examples-for-staticcompiler-jl/134054/27 https://discourse.julialang.org/t/ai-generated-enhancements-...
  - joelreymont 10mo ago
    I'm strictly talking about the 10-line Zig PR above. Well-documented and tested.
    - whilenot-dev 10mo ago
      That's certainly a way to avoid questions... I mean sure, but everybody else is talking about how your humongous PRs are a burden to review.
      - joelreymont 10mo ago
        Which is something I agreed with and apologized for, and admitted was somewhat of a PR stunt. Now, what's your question?
- xign 10mo ago
  I can't even reproduce your supposed "issue" regarding the Zig compiler "bug". I have an Apple Silicon Mac and tried your reproducer and zig compiled and ran the program just fine. Honestly, I really suggest reading up on what self-reflection means. I read through your various PRs, and the fact that you can't even answer why a random author name shows up in your PR means the code can't be trusted. It's not just about attribution (although that's important). It's that it's such a simple thing that you can't even reason through. You may claim you have written loads of tests, but that means literally nothing. How do you know they are testing the important parts? Also you haven't demonstrated that it "works" other than in the simplest use cases.
  - joelreymont 10mo ago
    Check the 2nd PR, the one in my repo and not the one that was rejected.
    - noticingdecline 10mo ago
      [dead]
- gexla 10mo ago
  > Why would you be unwilling to merge AI code at all? Because structurally it's a flag for being highly likely to waste extremely scare time. It's sort of like avoiding bad neighborhoods,not because everyone is bad, but because there is enough bad there that it's not worth bothering with. What sticks out for me in these cases is that the AI sticks out like a sore thumb. Go ahead and use AI, it's as if the low effort nature of AI sets users on a course of using low effort throughout the cycle of whatever it is they are trying to accomplish as an end game. The AI shouldn't look like AI. The proposed contributions shouldn't stand out from the norm. This include the entire process, not just the provided code. It's just a bad aesthetic and for most people it screams "low effort."
- losvedir 10mo ago
  Personally, I'm skeptical that it's a real bug, and that even if it is, that's the proper fix. For all I know, the LLM hallucinated the whole thing, terminal prompts, output, "fix" and all. It takes time to review these things, and when you haven't shown yourself to be acting responsibly, there's no reason to give you the benefit of the doubt and spend time even checking if the damn alleged bug is real. It doesn't even link to an existing issue, which I'm pretty sure would exist for something as basic as this. How do you know it's an issue? I think you're letting the always confident LLM trick you into thinking it's doing something real and useful.
- weare138 10mo ago
  If poo flinging monkeys are making the sausage people don't care how good the sausage is.

joelreymont 10mo ago

Why would you be unwilling to merge AI code at all? Consider my other PR against the Zig compiler [1]... I was careful to make it small and properly document it but there's a strict anti-AI policy for Zig and they closed the PR. Why? Is it not small? Not carefully documented? Is there no value it int? I'm not complaining or arguing for justice. I'm genuinely interested in how people think in this instance. If the sausage looks good and tastes great, and was made observing the proper health standards, do you still care how the sausage was made?! [1] https://github.com/joelreymont/zig/pull/1 https://github.com/joelreymont/zig/pull/1 [2] https://ziggit.dev/t/bug-wrong-segment-ordering-for-macos-using-the-non-llvm-arm64-backend/13221 https://ziggit.dev/t/bug-wrong-segment-ordering-for-macos-us...

heavyset_go 10mo ago
> Why would you be unwilling to merge AI code at all? Because AI code cannot be copyrighted. It is not anyone's IP. That matters when you're creating IP. edit: Assuming this is a real person I'm responding to, and this isn't just a marketing gimmick, having seen the trail you've left on the internet over the past few weeks, it strikes me of mania, possibly chatbot-induced. I don't know what I can say that could help, so I'm dropping out of this conversation and wish you the best.
- kcexn 10mo ago
  This is a position that seems to be as unenforceable as AI can't be trained on code whose copyright owners have not given consent. The main reason for being unwilling to merge AI code is going to be that it sets a precedent that AI code is acceptable. Suddenly, maintainers need to be able to make judgement calls on a case-by-case basis of what constitutes an acceptable AI contribution, and AI is going to be able to generate far more slop than people will ever have the time to review and agree upon.
  - PunchyHamster 10mo ago
    > This is a position that seems to be as unenforceable as AI can't be trained on code whose copyright owners have not given consent. Stares at facebook stealing terabytes of copyrighted content to train their models Also, even if code is trained only on FLOSS approved licenses, GPL based ones have some caveats that would disqualify many projects with including code
  - heavyset_go 10mo ago
    > This is a position that seems to be as unenforceable as AI can't be trained on code whose copyright owners have not given consent. This depends on what courts find, at least one non-precedent setting case found model training on basically everyone's IP without permission to be fair use. If it's fair use, consent isn't needed, licenses don't matter and the only way to prevent training on your content is to withhold it and gate it behind contracts that forfeit your clients' rights to fair use. But that is beside the point, even if what you claim was the case, my point is that AI output isn't property. It's not property whether its training corpus was full of licensed or unlicensed content. This is what the US Copyright Office determined. If you include AI output in your product, that part of it isn't yours. It isn't anybody's, so anyone can copy it and anyone can do whatever they want with it, including the AI/cloud providers you allowed your code to get slurped up to as context to LLMs. You want to own your IP, you don't want to say "we own 30% of the product we wrote, but 70% of it is non-property that anyone can copy/use/sell with no strings attached, even open source licenses". This matters if you're building a business or open source project. If you include AI code in your open source project, that part of the project isn't covered by your license. LLMs can't sign CLAs and they can't produce intellectual property that can be licensed or owned. The more of your project that is developed by AI, the more it is not yours, and the more of it cannot be covered by your open source license of choice.
    - cesarb 10mo ago
      > This is what the US Copyright Office determined. There are hundreds of countries in the world. Whatever the "US Copyright Office" determines, applies to only one of them.
whilenot-dev 10mo ago
> Why would you be unwilling to merge AI code at all? Are you leaving the third-party aspect out of your question on purpose? Not GP but for me, it pretty much boils down to the comment from Mason[0]: "If I wanted an LLM to generate [...] unreviewed code [...], I could do it myself." To put it bluntly, everybody can generate code via LLMs and writing code isn't what defines the dominant work of an existing project anymore, as the write/verify-balance shifts to become verify-heavy. Who's better equipped to verify generated code than the maintainers themselves? Instead of prompting LLMs for a feature, one could request the desired feature from the maintainers in the issue tracker and let them decide whether they want to generate the code via LLMs or not, discuss strategies etc. Whether the maintainers will use their time for reviews should remain their choice, and their choice only - anyone besides the maintainers should have no say in this. There's also the cultural problem where the review efforts are non-/underrepresented in any contemporary VCS, and the amount of merged code grants for a higher authority over a repository than any time spent doing reviews or verification (the Linux kernel might be an exception here?). We might need to rethink that approach moving forward. [0]: https://discourse.julialang.org/t/ai-generated-enhancements-and-examples-for-staticcompiler-jl/134054/27 https://discourse.julialang.org/t/ai-generated-enhancements-...
- joelreymont 10mo ago
  I'm strictly talking about the 10-line Zig PR above. Well-documented and tested.
  - whilenot-dev 10mo ago
    That's certainly a way to avoid questions... I mean sure, but everybody else is talking about how your humongous PRs are a burden to review.
    - joelreymont 10mo ago
      Which is something I agreed with and apologized for, and admitted was somewhat of a PR stunt. Now, what's your question?
xign 10mo ago
I can't even reproduce your supposed "issue" regarding the Zig compiler "bug". I have an Apple Silicon Mac and tried your reproducer and zig compiled and ran the program just fine. Honestly, I really suggest reading up on what self-reflection means. I read through your various PRs, and the fact that you can't even answer why a random author name shows up in your PR means the code can't be trusted. It's not just about attribution (although that's important). It's that it's such a simple thing that you can't even reason through. You may claim you have written loads of tests, but that means literally nothing. How do you know they are testing the important parts? Also you haven't demonstrated that it "works" other than in the simplest use cases.
- joelreymont 10mo ago
  Check the 2nd PR, the one in my repo and not the one that was rejected.
  - noticingdecline 10mo ago
    [dead]
gexla 10mo ago
> Why would you be unwilling to merge AI code at all? Because structurally it's a flag for being highly likely to waste extremely scare time. It's sort of like avoiding bad neighborhoods,not because everyone is bad, but because there is enough bad there that it's not worth bothering with. What sticks out for me in these cases is that the AI sticks out like a sore thumb. Go ahead and use AI, it's as if the low effort nature of AI sets users on a course of using low effort throughout the cycle of whatever it is they are trying to accomplish as an end game. The AI shouldn't look like AI. The proposed contributions shouldn't stand out from the norm. This include the entire process, not just the provided code. It's just a bad aesthetic and for most people it screams "low effort."
losvedir 10mo ago
Personally, I'm skeptical that it's a real bug, and that even if it is, that's the proper fix. For all I know, the LLM hallucinated the whole thing, terminal prompts, output, "fix" and all. It takes time to review these things, and when you haven't shown yourself to be acting responsibly, there's no reason to give you the benefit of the doubt and spend time even checking if the damn alleged bug is real. It doesn't even link to an existing issue, which I'm pretty sure would exist for something as basic as this. How do you know it's an issue? I think you're letting the always confident LLM trick you into thinking it's doing something real and useful.
weare138 10mo ago
If poo flinging monkeys are making the sausage people don't care how good the sausage is.