4 ms·

You say "on a long enough timeline", but you already can't tell today in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing. I think a lot of anti-LLM opinions

You say "on a long enough timeline", but you already can't tell today in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing. I think a lot of anti-LLM opinions just come from interacting with the lowest effort LLM slop and someone not realizing that it's really a problem with a low value person behind it. It's why "no AI allowed" is pointless; high value contributors won't follow it because they know how to use it productively and they know there's no way for you to tell, and low value people never cared about wasting your time with low effort output, so the rule is performative. e.g. If you tell me AI isn't allowed because it writes bad code, then you're clearly not talking to someone who uses AI to plan, specify, and implement high quality code.

lpcvoid 8mo ago
All LLM-output is slop. There's no good LLM output. It's stolen code, stolen literature, stolen media condensed into the greatest heist of the 21. century. Perfect capitalism - big LLM companies don't need to pay royalties to humans, while selling access to a service which generates monthly revenue.
- sieep 8mo ago
  Well put. Im gonna start parroting this talking point more from now on.
  - ronsor 8mo ago
    And I thought being a stochastic parrot was limited to LLMs, but apparently they learned it from somewhere...
- hombre_fatal 8mo ago
  Whether it trained on real world "stolen" code is an implementation detail. A controversial one, but it isn't a supporting argument for whether it can write high quality, functional code or not.
  - jacquesm 8mo ago
    Sorry, but no, that is not a detail, that is a major sticking point for me.
- __alexs 8mo ago
  I came from a poor background and stole pretty much all the textbooks I used to learn programming as a kid. I also stole all the music I listened to while studying them. Is everything I write slop for the same reason?
  - lpcvoid 8mo ago
    No. You're a human, who went through real life experiences. You learned, developed as a human being. You made mistakes and grew from them. You did what you have to do to advance. What you output has intrinsic value because of all this. I argue that even when you roll your face on your keyboard, the output is more valuable than ten pages of slop output from an LLM, since it's human, with all the history, experience, emotions and character which came before it.
    - the_biot 8mo ago
      A quote from Neuromancer comes to mind: "But I ain't likely to write you no poem, if you follow me. Your AI, it just might. But it ain't no way human.”
    - sigbottle 8mo ago
      I don't know why this got downvoted. I've already been so frustrated by HN LIDAR mindsets but holy shit. Human society exists because we value humans, full stop. The easiest way to "solve" all of humanity's problems is to simply say that humans aren't valuable. Sometimes it feels like we're conceding a ridiculous amount of ground on that basic principle every year - one more human value gone because it "doesn't matter", so hey, we've obviously made progress!
      - bigstrat2003 8mo ago
        Agreed. I think that sometimes people on HN lose sight of what is actually important, which is human flourishing. The other day there was someone arguing that the best thing to do to fix loneliness problems in society is to remove the human need for socializing. Which... is certainly one way to fix the problem, I guess, but completely missed the point. The point is not to fix a mismatch between essential human desires and what we can attain, the point is to work on fulfilling those desires! Just something goes with nerd autism, I guess.
- mikkupikku 8mo ago
  I'm fine with calling all LLM outputs slop, but I'll draw the line at asserting there's no good LLM output. LLM output is good when it works, and we can easily verify that a lot of code from LLMs does work. That the code LLMs output is derive of copyrighted works is neither here nor there. First of all, ALL creative work is derivative. Secondly IP is absurd horse shit and we never should have humored the premise of it being treated like real property.
datsci_est_2015 8mo ago
> It's why "no AI allowed" is pointless … If you tell me AI isn't allowed because it writes bad code I disagree that the rule is pointless, and your last point is a strawman. AI is disallowed because it’s the manner in which the would-be contributors are attempting to contribute to these projects. It’s a proxy rule. Unfortunately for AI maximalists, code is more than just letters on the screen. There needs to be human understanding, and if you’re not a core contributor who’s proven you’re willing to stick around when shit hits the fan, a +3000 PR is a liability, not an asset. Maybe there needs to be something like the MMORPG concept of “Dragon Kill Points (DKP)”, where you’re not entitled to loot (contribution) until you’ve proven that you give a shit.
- sigseg1v 8mo ago
  Vibe coded slop is a 50 DKP minus of course
- cindyllm 8mo ago
  [dead]
- darkwater 8mo ago
  > and if you’re not a core contributor who’s proven you’re willing to stick around when shit hits the fan, a +3000 PR is a liability, not an asset. And in the context of high-value contributors that GP was mentioning, they are never going to land a +3000 PR because they know there is going to be a human reviewer on the other side.
- bombcar 8mo ago
  > Unfortunately for AI maximalists, code is more than just letters on the screen. There needs to be human understanding, and if you’re not a core contributor who’s proven you’re willing to stick around when shit hits the fan, a +3000 PR is a liability, not an asset. This isn't necessarily true; I've seen some projects absorb a PR of roughly that size, and after the smoke tests and other standard development stuff, the original PR author basically disappeared. It added a feature he wanted, he tested and coded it, and got it in.
beepbooptheory 8mo ago
But then why have any contributions at all? Like its been years and years now, if all this is true, you'd think there would be more of a paradigm shift? I'm happy I guess waiting for Godot like everyone else, but the shadows are getting a little long now, people are starting to just repeat the same things over and over. Like, I am so tired now, it's causing such messes everywhere. Can all the best things about AI be manifest soon? Is there a timeline? Like what can I take so that I can see the brave new world just out of reach? Where can I go? If I could just even taste the mindset of the true believer for a moment, I feel like it would be a reprieve.
- pixl97 8mo ago
  > Where can I go? Off the internet. Maybe it's just time we all face the public internet is dead. Maybe a trusted private internet, though that comes with it's own risks and tradeoffs. Maybe we start doing PRs over mailed USB keys. Anyone with enough interest will do it, but it will cut out the bots. We're back to a 90's sneakernet. Any internet presence may become a read only site telling others how to reach you offline. The information superhighway died a long time ago. 4chan enlightened me on the power of intelligent stupidity. The machinations of a few smart people could embolden countless stupid people to cause nearly unlimited damage. Social media gathering up the smart and dumb alike allowed bullshit asymmetry to explode onto the scene and burned out anyone with a modicum of intelligence.
nananana9 8mo ago
I don't see an issue here. You keep using AI to create high value contributions in the projects that accept it, I will keep not using it in mine, and we can see who wins out in 10 years.
fwip 8mo ago
> high value contributors won't follow it High-value contributors follow the rules and social mores of the community they are contributing to. If they intentionally deceive others, they are not high-value.
- pixl97 8mo ago
  Ah, the no true Scotsman theory.
  - thunderfork 8mo ago
    Arguing that "doesn't secretly, sneakily break project rules" is an essential component of a quality contributor isn't a "no true scotsman" argument, it's a statement about qualifications
    - pixl97 8mo ago
      You see where this becomes a religious like argument right? Since it's secretly and sneakily there is no way to measure it. So as far as any other participant knows there is no measurable difference, hence your argument depends on said agents to be 'pure' and 'true', hence the exact definition of the no true Scotsman fallacy. I hope you see how this quickly will advance from a project being about accomplishing some goal, to a project becoming about humans showing they are the ones writing code. Much like we see in religions where people don't give money to the poor to benefit the poor, but show they give money to the poor to benefit themselves. Hence the game playing will continue and the underlying problem will never be addressed.
      - thunderfork 8mo ago
        The point of the rule isn't enforcement, it's setting standards for good-faith contributors. Your assumption that all rules must be about enforcement is incorrect. Your assumption that only that which can be measured matters is incorrect. I don't know where this belief system comes from, but it strikes me as profoundly toxic. By this logic, we obviously shouldn't ban drinking and driving - there's no way to test every driver every time, and presumably those most skilled at drunk driving would be undetectable, so it's really just religious moralism. "Good drivers don't drink and drive even if they think they can get away with it" is just a no-true-scotsman argument, and thus we should actually encourage people to drink and drive so that they get better at it. Nobody should ever have any standards that can't be automatically enforced by a linter, after all. And look: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340079 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340079 Unenforceable rules might just be the backbone of society, if you think about it.

lpcvoid 8mo ago

All LLM-output is slop. There's no good LLM output. It's stolen code, stolen literature, stolen media condensed into the greatest heist of the 21. century. Perfect capitalism - big LLM companies don't need to pay royalties to humans, while selling access to a service which generates monthly revenue.

sieep 8mo ago
Well put. Im gonna start parroting this talking point more from now on.
- ronsor 8mo ago
  And I thought being a stochastic parrot was limited to LLMs, but apparently they learned it from somewhere...
hombre_fatal 8mo ago
Whether it trained on real world "stolen" code is an implementation detail. A controversial one, but it isn't a supporting argument for whether it can write high quality, functional code or not.
- jacquesm 8mo ago
  Sorry, but no, that is not a detail, that is a major sticking point for me.
__alexs 8mo ago
I came from a poor background and stole pretty much all the textbooks I used to learn programming as a kid. I also stole all the music I listened to while studying them. Is everything I write slop for the same reason?
- lpcvoid 8mo ago
  No. You're a human, who went through real life experiences. You learned, developed as a human being. You made mistakes and grew from them. You did what you have to do to advance. What you output has intrinsic value because of all this. I argue that even when you roll your face on your keyboard, the output is more valuable than ten pages of slop output from an LLM, since it's human, with all the history, experience, emotions and character which came before it.
  - the_biot 8mo ago
    A quote from Neuromancer comes to mind: "But I ain't likely to write you no poem, if you follow me. Your AI, it just might. But it ain't no way human.”
  - sigbottle 8mo ago
    I don't know why this got downvoted. I've already been so frustrated by HN LIDAR mindsets but holy shit. Human society exists because we value humans, full stop. The easiest way to "solve" all of humanity's problems is to simply say that humans aren't valuable. Sometimes it feels like we're conceding a ridiculous amount of ground on that basic principle every year - one more human value gone because it "doesn't matter", so hey, we've obviously made progress!
    - bigstrat2003 8mo ago
      Agreed. I think that sometimes people on HN lose sight of what is actually important, which is human flourishing. The other day there was someone arguing that the best thing to do to fix loneliness problems in society is to remove the human need for socializing. Which... is certainly one way to fix the problem, I guess, but completely missed the point. The point is not to fix a mismatch between essential human desires and what we can attain, the point is to work on fulfilling those desires! Just something goes with nerd autism, I guess.
mikkupikku 8mo ago
I'm fine with calling all LLM outputs slop, but I'll draw the line at asserting there's no good LLM output. LLM output is good when it works, and we can easily verify that a lot of code from LLMs does work. That the code LLMs output is derive of copyrighted works is neither here nor there. First of all, ALL creative work is derivative. Secondly IP is absurd horse shit and we never should have humored the premise of it being treated like real property.

datsci_est_2015 8mo ago

> It's why "no AI allowed" is pointless … If you tell me AI isn't allowed because it writes bad code I disagree that the rule is pointless, and your last point is a strawman. AI is disallowed because it’s the manner in which the would-be contributors are attempting to contribute to these projects. It’s a proxy rule. Unfortunately for AI maximalists, code is more than just letters on the screen. There needs to be human understanding, and if you’re not a core contributor who’s proven you’re willing to stick around when shit hits the fan, a +3000 PR is a liability, not an asset. Maybe there needs to be something like the MMORPG concept of “Dragon Kill Points (DKP)”, where you’re not entitled to loot (contribution) until you’ve proven that you give a shit.

sigseg1v 8mo ago
Vibe coded slop is a 50 DKP minus of course
cindyllm 8mo ago
[dead]
darkwater 8mo ago
> and if you’re not a core contributor who’s proven you’re willing to stick around when shit hits the fan, a +3000 PR is a liability, not an asset. And in the context of high-value contributors that GP was mentioning, they are never going to land a +3000 PR because they know there is going to be a human reviewer on the other side.
bombcar 8mo ago
> Unfortunately for AI maximalists, code is more than just letters on the screen. There needs to be human understanding, and if you’re not a core contributor who’s proven you’re willing to stick around when shit hits the fan, a +3000 PR is a liability, not an asset. This isn't necessarily true; I've seen some projects absorb a PR of roughly that size, and after the smoke tests and other standard development stuff, the original PR author basically disappeared. It added a feature he wanted, he tested and coded it, and got it in.

beepbooptheory 8mo ago

But then why have any contributions at all? Like its been years and years now, if all this is true, you'd think there would be more of a paradigm shift? I'm happy I guess waiting for Godot like everyone else, but the shadows are getting a little long now, people are starting to just repeat the same things over and over. Like, I am so tired now, it's causing such messes everywhere. Can all the best things about AI be manifest soon? Is there a timeline? Like what can I take so that I can see the brave new world just out of reach? Where can I go? If I could just even taste the mindset of the true believer for a moment, I feel like it would be a reprieve.

pixl97 8mo ago
> Where can I go? Off the internet. Maybe it's just time we all face the public internet is dead. Maybe a trusted private internet, though that comes with it's own risks and tradeoffs. Maybe we start doing PRs over mailed USB keys. Anyone with enough interest will do it, but it will cut out the bots. We're back to a 90's sneakernet. Any internet presence may become a read only site telling others how to reach you offline. The information superhighway died a long time ago. 4chan enlightened me on the power of intelligent stupidity. The machinations of a few smart people could embolden countless stupid people to cause nearly unlimited damage. Social media gathering up the smart and dumb alike allowed bullshit asymmetry to explode onto the scene and burned out anyone with a modicum of intelligence.

nananana9 8mo ago

I don't see an issue here. You keep using AI to create high value contributions in the projects that accept it, I will keep not using it in mine, and we can see who wins out in 10 years.

fwip 8mo ago

> high value contributors won't follow it High-value contributors follow the rules and social mores of the community they are contributing to. If they intentionally deceive others, they are not high-value.

pixl97 8mo ago
Ah, the no true Scotsman theory.
- thunderfork 8mo ago
  Arguing that "doesn't secretly, sneakily break project rules" is an essential component of a quality contributor isn't a "no true scotsman" argument, it's a statement about qualifications
  - pixl97 8mo ago
    You see where this becomes a religious like argument right? Since it's secretly and sneakily there is no way to measure it. So as far as any other participant knows there is no measurable difference, hence your argument depends on said agents to be 'pure' and 'true', hence the exact definition of the no true Scotsman fallacy. I hope you see how this quickly will advance from a project being about accomplishing some goal, to a project becoming about humans showing they are the ones writing code. Much like we see in religions where people don't give money to the poor to benefit the poor, but show they give money to the poor to benefit themselves. Hence the game playing will continue and the underlying problem will never be addressed.
    - thunderfork 8mo ago
      The point of the rule isn't enforcement, it's setting standards for good-faith contributors. Your assumption that all rules must be about enforcement is incorrect. Your assumption that only that which can be measured matters is incorrect. I don't know where this belief system comes from, but it strikes me as profoundly toxic. By this logic, we obviously shouldn't ban drinking and driving - there's no way to test every driver every time, and presumably those most skilled at drunk driving would be undetectable, so it's really just religious moralism. "Good drivers don't drink and drive even if they think they can get away with it" is just a no-true-scotsman argument, and thus we should actually encourage people to drink and drive so that they get better at it. Nobody should ever have any standards that can't be automatically enforced by a linter, after all. And look: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340079 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340079 Unenforceable rules might just be the backbone of society, if you think about it.