2 ms·
At face value a policy that essentially prohibits AI generated implementation seems entirely unreasonable to me.
by user43928 3mo ago
At face value a policy that essentially prohibits AI generated implementation seems entirely unreasonable to me.
- natebc 3mo ago[dead]
- user43928 3mo 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 3mo 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 3mo 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 3mo 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.