5 ms·
Currently the top one has a nice kind of supervillain flair to it: > Denying it is denying human nature, Mr. Bond, and the gods tend to punish the hubris of de
by beepbooptheory 3mo ago
Currently the top one has a nice kind of supervillain flair to it:
> Denying it is denying human nature, Mr. Bond, and the gods tend to punish the hubris of denying nature.
- snowram 3mo agoLwn.net is the last place I would have expected prophets to lecture us on gods plan for large language models.
- pocksuppet 3mo agoI believe LWN comments are chronological, so the top one will remain the top one.
- a-french-anon 3mo agoThat guy is stupid, the part of human nature containing dishonesty also houses "following the path of least resistance", which means that these people will simply contribute to another leading compiler without these rules. So the real question is: what's LLVM policy?
- compiler-guy 3mo agoFull text is linked below, but it is getting revised pretty regularly. tl;dr: Requirement is that a human must be in the loop; the contributor must have reviewed the change by hand already; and is always accountable; the human must be able to answer questions about the change, such as strategy chosen, corner cases, etc. etc. Even with this very permissive and well considered policy, they get a lot of slop submissions. Huge amounts of pure trash. And the debate continues about what to do about it. Some are in favor of forbidding it simply because it would reduce the amount of slop they have to wade through, and the 10% good prs done with AI don't outweigh the 90% pure junk prs. Reviewer time is way too scarce. But it is just as controversial there as it is over on lwn. https://llvm.org/docs/AIToolPolicy.html https://llvm.org/docs/AIToolPolicy.html
- matheusmoreira 3mo agoThis is a very reasonable policy.
- duskdozer 3mo agoIt's nuts how strong the reactions are. This is a rather permissive policy: tests and changes 15 lines are fully allowed.
- agentultra 3mo agoI believe there’s a small minority of LLM users who will show up to any comment thread and scream bloody murder if you post any kind of policy limiting LLM use. They seem to feel like it’s a personal attack and must justify their use of LLMs… for absolutely no reason. It’s wild.
- account42 3mo agoLikely they use LLMs so much they have made it part of their identity.
- sodapopcan 3mo agoIt's like a gun enthusiast throwing a fit because you don't want them to bring their gun into your house. "I get that you find it useful to have a gun at your house, and I understand that we are never going to revert back to the days when guns didn't exist, but we don't allow them in this house." (and not, I'm not slyly trying to say LLMs are like guns, yeesh)
- ethin 3mo agoYep, same for those LLM creators who get all pissy when you provide (constructive) criticism about what they've outputted (or ask reasonable questions like if the person is doing actual tests) and they get all offended and call you ungrateful. This happened to me with the author of a Godot GDExtension: I'm (pretty sure) the dev was vibe-coding it, so after like 4-5 releases of it not loading in the editor at all due to what I would consider basic mistakes, I bluntly asked them if they were actually testing their code and got told I was ungrateful and being rude and disrespectful and all that even though what I was asking was very reasonable (after all, the dev had repeatedly released versions that wouldn't even load in the editor).
- 3mo ago
- tavavex 3mo agoMy heuristic that any argument, regardless of the topic, that relies on 'it's just human nature' is bullshit keeps being proven right.