5 ms·
The GCC stance seems reasonable to me, where do we think the rage is coming from in comments like this? Off the cuff, I would be surprised if the GNU project e
by randusername 2mo ago
The GCC stance seems reasonable to me, where do we think the rage is coming from in comments like this?
Off the cuff, I would be surprised if the GNU project embraced AI, so I'm confused that people think so strongly otherwise.
- user43928 2mo agoAt face value a policy that essentially prohibits AI generated implementation seems entirely unreasonable to me.
- natebc 2mo ago[dead]
- user43928 2mo agoI said at face value because there was no reason given in either the policy nor the article submitted here. It would be interesting to know why they decided for a general prohibition, rather than going with the default "a human must be responsible for the contribution" kind of policy. Perhaps they have received a flood of undesirable AI generated contributions, and actual contributors do not use AI significantly.
- archagon 2mo agoCode is communication. Open source is community. Engineering is understanding systems in depth. LLMs fundamentally hinder all three. I'm not sure you even need to look much further than that.
- user43928 2mo agoI disagree, and quote here Linus' recent comment: > In the kernel community we do open source because it results in better technology, not because of religious reasons. > And so we make decisions primarily based on technical merit. Not fear of new tools. You are not making an argument based on technical merit here.
- archagon 2mo agoI am making an argument based on the fundamental nature of the tool, which is to make stochastic, unvetted decisions our behalf — categorically different from everything else in our toolbox. The technical and social repercussions to this are potentially vast: no other tool comes close. So it is actually Linus who is making an unconvincing appeal to emotion (and authority) by pretending that LLMs resemble hammers.
- account42 2mo agoThere seem to be a set of people who treat AI as religion which then makes anything opposing it (even mildly) into heresy.
- cozzyd 2mo agoOr they're self conscious about their use of AI so they take a maximalist stance to compensate.
- Planktonne 2mo agoI think definitely a combination; there are those who believe that LLMs are the entire future, and those who are ashamed of themselves for using it. Both lead to rage at people who don't approve totally.
- olalonde 2mo agoCan't speak for others but I'm just tired of hearing far-fetched copyright concerns that mask the real motivation (ideological opposition to LLMs).
- leonidasv 2mo agoThey still allow LLM-generated code for tests, LLM-assisted debugging, bug discovery and code reviews. It doesn't seem so.
- olalonde 2mo agoAt the same time, they would be somewhat forced to concede those use cases if they wanted to stick to the copyright story. Maybe you're right but I remain skeptical.
- amusingimpala75 2mo agoYes but if the concern is being forced to remove code in the case of copyright violation it is trivial to remove code that is a test case as opposed to a feature of the compiler
- olalonde 2mo agoYes, that's what I meant. It's harder to use the copyright excuse for those use cases.
- randusername 2mo agoIt's far-fetched that the GNU project is authentically concerned about software licensing?
- olalonde 2mo agoNo, it's far-fetched to believe GCC would get sued for incorporating LLM-generated code.
- mrgoldenbrown 2mo agoIf the only way you know how to code is via LLM, it makes sense you would get defensive/ragey when someone discourages it.
- archagon 2mo agoEntitlement, insecurity, a demand to be treated as a "real" engineer while understanding only a fraction of the code you produce.