7 ms·

Zig has a similar stance on no-LLM policy https://codeberg.org/ziglang/zig#strict-no-llm-no-ai-policy https://codeberg.org/ziglang/zig#strict-no-llm-no-ai-poli

by yla92 7mo ago

Zig has a similar stance on no-LLM policy https://codeberg.org/ziglang/zig#strict-no-llm-no-ai-policy https://codeberg.org/ziglang/zig#strict-no-llm-no-ai-policy

pmarreck 7mo ago
Yep, that’s why my forks of all their libraries with bugs fixed such as https://github.com/pmarreck/zigimg/commit/52c4b9a557d38fe1e166ac21c52fcd972af7e1c5 https://github.com/pmarreck/zigimg/commit/52c4b9a557d38fe1e1... will never ever go back to upstream, just because an LLM did it. Lame, but oh well- their loss. Also, this is dumb because anyone who wants fixes like this will have to find a fork like mine with them, which is an increased maintenance burden.
- lpcvoid 7mo ago
  Hugely unpopular opinion on HN, but I'd rather use code that is flawed while written by a human, versus code that has been generated by a LLM, even if it fixes bugs. I'd gladly take a bug report, sure, but then I'd fix the issues myself. I'd never allow LLM code to be merged.
  - CoastalCoder 7mo ago
    Any thoughts on why you have that preference?
    - lpcvoid 7mo ago
      Because human errors are, well, human. And producing code that contains those errors is a human endeavor. It bases on years, decades of learning. Mistakes were made, experience was gained, skills were improved. Reasoning by humans is relatable. Generating slop using LLMs takes seconds, has no human element, no work goes into it. Mistakes made by an LLM are excused without sincerity, without real learning, without consequence. I hate everything about that.
      - hijnksforall956 7mo ago
        [flagged]
        CoastalCoder 7mo ago
        Friendly suggestion: your post contains a mix of interesting points and ad hominim attacks. People will be more likely to engage with your main assertion if you leave out the insults.
        hijnksforall956 7mo ago
        Is that like when "respected poster" jascuqesm implied I'm an asshole?
        CoastalCoder 7mo ago
        I'm not trying to police the whole website. I noticed your account was new, so I thought you might appreciate a likely explanation for why your post was being downvoted.
        foresterre 7mo ago
        That's a rather unkind comment. For the parent there's immaterial value knowing that is written by a human. From what I read in your comment, you see code more as a means to an end. I think I understand where the parent is coming from. Writing code myself, and accomplishing what I set out to build sometimes feels like a form of art, and knowing that I build it, gives me a sense of accomplishment. And gives me energy. Writing code solely as a means to an end, or letting it be generated by some model, doesn't give that same energy. This thinking has nothing to do with not caring about being a good teammate or the business. I've no idea why you put that on the same pile.
        hijnksforall956 7mo ago
        Some people like to do wood working with old tools, or build their house themselves. Wonderful. We are not taking about that. Code is a means to an end.
  - Meneth 7mo ago
    I agree.
  - TiredOfLife 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - mekael 7mo ago
      A desire to engage with humans instead of matrix multiplication isn’t, and is incapable of being, racist. The underlying data that said matrices compute upon, can be racist though. I will admit that I may be missing some context though.
- orf 7mo ago
  just like... don't tell them a LLM did it?
  - jacquesm 7mo ago
    That's a dick move because you are opening up an open source project to claims of infringement without recourse. Why on earth would you force stuff on a party that has said they don't want that?
    - orf 7mo ago
      Sure, but back in reality no you’re not? No more than any other contributor? If I want to use an auto-complete then I can, and I will? Restricting that is as regressive as a project trying to specify that I write code from a specific country or… standing on my head. Sure, if they want me to add a “I’m writing this standing on my head” message in the PR then I will… but I’m not.
      - jacquesm 7mo ago
        No, you can't. See, that's where you are just wrong: when you don't respect the boundaries an open source project sets that you want to contribute to then you are a net negative. Restricting this is their right, and it is not for you to attempt to overrule that right. Besides the fact that you do not oversee the consequences it also makes you an asshole. They're not asking for you to write standing on your head, they are asking for you to author your contributions yourself.
        orf 7mo ago
        They are asking me to author my contributions in a way that they approve of. The essence of the request is the same as asking someone to author them whilst standing on their head. Except they don’t, won’t and can’t control that: the very request is insulting. I’ll make a change any way I choose, upright, sideways, using AI. My choice. Not theirs. Their choice is to accept it or reject it based purely on the change itself, because that’s all there is.
- 8organicbits 7mo ago
  The commit you listed was merged upstream. https://github.com/zigimg/zigimg/pull/313 https://github.com/zigimg/zigimg/pull/313
  - logicprog 7mo ago
    So does that mean they contradicted their own no LLM policy?
    - ptx 7mo ago
      The PR doesn't disclose that "an LLM did it", so maybe the project allowed a violation of their policy by mistake. I guess they could revert the commit if they happen to see the submitter's HN comment.
    - TacticalCoder 7mo ago
      Dunno but a commenter already noted that some begins to say: "No LLM generated PR, but we'll accept your prompt" and another person answered he saw that too. It makes lots of sense to me.
      - conradludgate 7mo ago
        I've never had a one-shot prompt ever work. It's always an interactive session to eventually get to the working solution.
    - nektro 7mo ago
      the policy listed is for the zig compiler. the commit in question is in a fork of a third-party library
  - pmarreck 7mo ago
    LOL, ah, whoops then =)
- voidUpdate 7mo ago
  If you know there's a bug, why not just properly fix it and get it merged, instead of outsourcing that fix?
  - KingMob 7mo ago
    Even before AI, getting a fix into an open source project required a certain level of time and effort. If you prefer to spend your time on other things, and you assume it will eventually get fixed by someone else, using an LLM to fix it just for yourself makes sense.
- il-b 7mo ago
  > Also, this is dumb because anyone who wants fixes like this will have to find a fork like mine with them Or a human will provide the fix?
  - laweijfmvo 7mo ago
    a human who looks at the AI generated fix but ‘types it out, the old fashioned way’?
    - justin66 7mo ago
      Because it's inconceivable that a human could look at a bug report and actually fix a bug.
dakolli 7mo ago
If you rely on llms, you're simply not going to make it. The person who showed their work on the math test is 9/10 times is doing better in life than the person that only knew how to use a calculator. Now how do we think things are going to turn out for the person that doesn't even think they need to learn how to use a calculator. Just like when people started losing their ability to navigate without a GPS/Maps app, you will lose your ability to write solid code, solve problems, hell maybe even read well. I want my brain to be strong in old age, and I actually love to write code unlike 99% in software apparently (like why did you people even start doing this career.. makes no sense to me). I'm going to keep writing the code myself! Stop paying Billionaires for their thinking machines, its not going to work out well for you.
- electrosphere 7mo ago
  I went into software because I like building things and coming up with solid solutions to business problems that are of use to society. I would not describe myself with "love to code". It's a means to an end to pay bills and have a meaningful career. I think of myself more like a carpenter or craftsman. I used a coding agent for the majority of my current project and I still got the "build stuff" itch scratched because Engineers are still responsible for the output and they are needed to interface between technical teams, UX, business people etc
  - jacquesm 7mo ago
    > I think of myself more like a carpenter or craftsman. > I used a coding agent for the majority of my current project and I still got the "build stuff" itch scratched because Engineers are still responsible for the output and they are needed to interface between technical teams, UX, business people etc Then you are the opposite of a carpenter or a craftsman, no matter what you think about it yourself.
    - mwigdahl 7mo ago
      What term would you use for that "opposite"?

by yla92 7mo ago

Zig has a similar stance on no-LLM policy https://codeberg.org/ziglang/zig#strict-no-llm-no-ai-policy https://codeberg.org/ziglang/zig#strict-no-llm-no-ai-policy

pmarreck 7mo ago

Yep, that’s why my forks of all their libraries with bugs fixed such as https://github.com/pmarreck/zigimg/commit/52c4b9a557d38fe1e166ac21c52fcd972af7e1c5 https://github.com/pmarreck/zigimg/commit/52c4b9a557d38fe1e1... will never ever go back to upstream, just because an LLM did it. Lame, but oh well- their loss. Also, this is dumb because anyone who wants fixes like this will have to find a fork like mine with them, which is an increased maintenance burden.

lpcvoid 7mo ago
Hugely unpopular opinion on HN, but I'd rather use code that is flawed while written by a human, versus code that has been generated by a LLM, even if it fixes bugs. I'd gladly take a bug report, sure, but then I'd fix the issues myself. I'd never allow LLM code to be merged.
- CoastalCoder 7mo ago
  Any thoughts on why you have that preference?
  - lpcvoid 7mo ago
    Because human errors are, well, human. And producing code that contains those errors is a human endeavor. It bases on years, decades of learning. Mistakes were made, experience was gained, skills were improved. Reasoning by humans is relatable. Generating slop using LLMs takes seconds, has no human element, no work goes into it. Mistakes made by an LLM are excused without sincerity, without real learning, without consequence. I hate everything about that.
    - hijnksforall956 7mo ago
      [flagged]
      - CoastalCoder 7mo ago
        Friendly suggestion: your post contains a mix of interesting points and ad hominim attacks. People will be more likely to engage with your main assertion if you leave out the insults.
        hijnksforall956 7mo ago
        Is that like when "respected poster" jascuqesm implied I'm an asshole?
        CoastalCoder 7mo ago
        I'm not trying to police the whole website. I noticed your account was new, so I thought you might appreciate a likely explanation for why your post was being downvoted.
      - foresterre 7mo ago
        That's a rather unkind comment. For the parent there's immaterial value knowing that is written by a human. From what I read in your comment, you see code more as a means to an end. I think I understand where the parent is coming from. Writing code myself, and accomplishing what I set out to build sometimes feels like a form of art, and knowing that I build it, gives me a sense of accomplishment. And gives me energy. Writing code solely as a means to an end, or letting it be generated by some model, doesn't give that same energy. This thinking has nothing to do with not caring about being a good teammate or the business. I've no idea why you put that on the same pile.
        hijnksforall956 7mo ago
        Some people like to do wood working with old tools, or build their house themselves. Wonderful. We are not taking about that. Code is a means to an end.
- Meneth 7mo ago
  I agree.
- TiredOfLife 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - mekael 7mo ago
    A desire to engage with humans instead of matrix multiplication isn’t, and is incapable of being, racist. The underlying data that said matrices compute upon, can be racist though. I will admit that I may be missing some context though.
orf 7mo ago
just like... don't tell them a LLM did it?
- jacquesm 7mo ago
  That's a dick move because you are opening up an open source project to claims of infringement without recourse. Why on earth would you force stuff on a party that has said they don't want that?
  - orf 7mo ago
    Sure, but back in reality no you’re not? No more than any other contributor? If I want to use an auto-complete then I can, and I will? Restricting that is as regressive as a project trying to specify that I write code from a specific country or… standing on my head. Sure, if they want me to add a “I’m writing this standing on my head” message in the PR then I will… but I’m not.
    - jacquesm 7mo ago
      No, you can't. See, that's where you are just wrong: when you don't respect the boundaries an open source project sets that you want to contribute to then you are a net negative. Restricting this is their right, and it is not for you to attempt to overrule that right. Besides the fact that you do not oversee the consequences it also makes you an asshole. They're not asking for you to write standing on your head, they are asking for you to author your contributions yourself.
      - orf 7mo ago
        They are asking me to author my contributions in a way that they approve of. The essence of the request is the same as asking someone to author them whilst standing on their head. Except they don’t, won’t and can’t control that: the very request is insulting. I’ll make a change any way I choose, upright, sideways, using AI. My choice. Not theirs. Their choice is to accept it or reject it based purely on the change itself, because that’s all there is.
8organicbits 7mo ago
The commit you listed was merged upstream. https://github.com/zigimg/zigimg/pull/313 https://github.com/zigimg/zigimg/pull/313
- logicprog 7mo ago
  So does that mean they contradicted their own no LLM policy?
  - ptx 7mo ago
    The PR doesn't disclose that "an LLM did it", so maybe the project allowed a violation of their policy by mistake. I guess they could revert the commit if they happen to see the submitter's HN comment.
  - TacticalCoder 7mo ago
    Dunno but a commenter already noted that some begins to say: "No LLM generated PR, but we'll accept your prompt" and another person answered he saw that too. It makes lots of sense to me.
    - conradludgate 7mo ago
      I've never had a one-shot prompt ever work. It's always an interactive session to eventually get to the working solution.
  - nektro 7mo ago
    the policy listed is for the zig compiler. the commit in question is in a fork of a third-party library
- pmarreck 7mo ago
  LOL, ah, whoops then =)
voidUpdate 7mo ago
If you know there's a bug, why not just properly fix it and get it merged, instead of outsourcing that fix?
- KingMob 7mo ago
  Even before AI, getting a fix into an open source project required a certain level of time and effort. If you prefer to spend your time on other things, and you assume it will eventually get fixed by someone else, using an LLM to fix it just for yourself makes sense.
il-b 7mo ago
> Also, this is dumb because anyone who wants fixes like this will have to find a fork like mine with them Or a human will provide the fix?
- laweijfmvo 7mo ago
  a human who looks at the AI generated fix but ‘types it out, the old fashioned way’?
  - justin66 7mo ago
    Because it's inconceivable that a human could look at a bug report and actually fix a bug.

dakolli 7mo ago

If you rely on llms, you're simply not going to make it. The person who showed their work on the math test is 9/10 times is doing better in life than the person that only knew how to use a calculator. Now how do we think things are going to turn out for the person that doesn't even think they need to learn how to use a calculator. Just like when people started losing their ability to navigate without a GPS/Maps app, you will lose your ability to write solid code, solve problems, hell maybe even read well. I want my brain to be strong in old age, and I actually love to write code unlike 99% in software apparently (like why did you people even start doing this career.. makes no sense to me). I'm going to keep writing the code myself! Stop paying Billionaires for their thinking machines, its not going to work out well for you.

electrosphere 7mo ago
I went into software because I like building things and coming up with solid solutions to business problems that are of use to society. I would not describe myself with "love to code". It's a means to an end to pay bills and have a meaningful career. I think of myself more like a carpenter or craftsman. I used a coding agent for the majority of my current project and I still got the "build stuff" itch scratched because Engineers are still responsible for the output and they are needed to interface between technical teams, UX, business people etc
- jacquesm 7mo ago
  > I think of myself more like a carpenter or craftsman. > I used a coding agent for the majority of my current project and I still got the "build stuff" itch scratched because Engineers are still responsible for the output and they are needed to interface between technical teams, UX, business people etc Then you are the opposite of a carpenter or a craftsman, no matter what you think about it yourself.
  - mwigdahl 7mo ago
    What term would you use for that "opposite"?