5 ms·
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 r
by 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 agoNo, 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 agoThey 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.
- duskdozer 7mo agoSo, "might makes right", essentially?
- orf 7mo agoNo, just a normal reaction to someone trying to force their beliefs on you.
- duskdozer 7mo agoYou can choose not to contribute instead of intentionally violating their boundaries.
- orf 7mo agoTheir boundaries. If they don’t want to accept the code, cool. Nobody is forcing them to, and I respect that. But if they can’t enforce their boundaries, because they can’t tell the difference between AI code and non-AI code without being told, then their boundaries they made up are unenforceable nonsense. About as nonsense and enforceable as asking me to code upside down.
- duskdozer 7mo agoSo we're back to might makes right then: "you can't stop me, so I'll do whatever I want to you."
- orf 7mo agoWhat a reductive argument. Is this your first day on planet earth? If so, here’s what you need to know: - people can just say things - when people say things, you don’t have to listen to them - not listening to them doesn’t make you superior or more powerful than them We can practice: I’d like you to always comment in uppercase letters from now on please. It’s my policy.
- eschaton 7mo agoIf you’re going to lie and say there was no LLM involved, what else are you going to lie about? Copying code from another codebase with incompatible license terms, perhaps? I would say people should be wary of any contributions whatsoever from a filthy fucking liar.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- orf 7mo ago> what else are you going to lie about? Nothing? Everything? Does it fucking matter? Assigning trust across a boundary like this is stupid, and that’s my point. Oh, would you just accept my blatantly, verbatim copied-from-another-codebase-and-relicensed PR just because I said “I solemnly swear this is not blatantly, verbatim copied from another codebase and relicensed”? That’s on you for stupidly assigning any trust to the author of the change. It’s the internet: nobody knows you’re a dog.
- eschaton 7mo ago[flagged]
- kuschku 7mo ago> Oh, would you just accept my blatantly, verbatim copied-from-another-codebase-and-relicensed PR just because I said “I solemnly swear this is not blatantly, verbatim copied from another codebase and relicensed”? At that point you've proven intention, meaning you'll get the chance to argue your viewpoint in front of a judge.
- orf 7mo ago> At that point you've proven intention, meaning you'll get the chance to argue your viewpoint in front of a judge. Sure, put out an international search warrant for xXImADogOnTheInternet86Xx.
- 7mo ago
- hijnksforall956 7mo agoI am authoring my contributions, using Clause Code as a tool. It doesn't make me an asshole. If the maintainers don't want to accept it, fine. Someone will eventually fork and advance and we move on. The Uncles can continue to play in their no AI playground, and show each other how nice their code is. The world is moving on from the "AI is bad" crowd.
- justin66 7mo agoForking the code can be perfectly reasonable, with this or any other disagreement about policy. The main point of contention in this thread is whether you ought to lie about having used an LLM. I agree with Jacques: doing something like that would make you an asshole.
- pmarreck 7mo ago> author your contributions yourself This is such an easily refuted assertion. Tell me, if something is wrong with the submitted code, who or what is responsible? If it's not "the LLM", then your opinion makes zero sense. The responsible party is always a human; therefore the responsible party rightfully deserves the credit whether it succeeds or fails.
- flykespice 7mo ago[flagged]
- orf 7mo agoNever? That would be tax avoidance and theft, both crimes.
- kuschku 7mo agoSo is fraudulently claiming your code has a different author & copyright (you) than it actually has (whether that's someone else's code, or LLM-generated code).
- orf 7mo ago[flagged]
- kuschku 7mo agohttps://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35
- orf 7mo agoI couldn’t find anything when I searched for “UK police task force tasked with ensuring people don’t lie on GitHub” could you help me with that thanks
- eschaton 7mo agoYou can, in fact, be pursued both civilly and criminally for fraud. Your admissions here are enough that if you tried to contribute to any of my own Open Source projects, I would reject your contributions, and if I had accepted any prior ones I would pursue legal remedies.
- orf 7mo ago