Zig has a similar stance on no-LLM policy
I'd gladly take a bug report, sure, but then I'd fix the issues myself. I'd never allow LLM code to be merged.
Generating slop using LLMs takes seconds, has no human element, no work goes into it. Mistakes made by an LLM are excused without sincerity, without real learning, without consequence. I hate everything about that.
Why on earth would you force stuff on a party that has said they don't want that?
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
Boundaries - of all kinds - are not unenforceable nonsense, they are rights that you willingly and knowingly violate.
I would say people should be wary of any contributions whatsoever from a filthy fucking liar.
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.
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.
Many major projects now require a signed DCO with a real name. That can be a nickname if you have a reasonable online presence under that name, but generally it has to identify you as an individual.
So you wouldn't sign it as "xXImADogOnTheInternet86Xx", but as "Tom Forbes (orf)".
And even if there won't be direct legal consequences, it'd certainly affect your ability to contribute to this or other projects in the future.
Why would I sign it as my real name? Does the DCO require ID verification? No? So it would be “Mr Ima Dog”.
People can lie in the internet, saying “oh but no they can’t because there’s a form they need to fill in!!” is supremely off topic nonsense.
(1) you would lie
(2) you fundamentally don't understand the concept of consent
> "I’ll make a change any way I choose, upright, sideways, using AI. My choice. Not theirs."
The fact that other people would lie is besides the point: those other people would get the exact same treatment if found out. Whether or not they would be found out is moot, it is the act of lying and ignoring consent that makes this what it is: asshole behavior. By extension anybody that practices this behavior is an asshole as well and by extension of that tying your own rep to people that would behave like that makes you an asshole and I highly doubt that that was your intention.
So now you've - over endless comments - shown that you fundamentally don't get this very important concept. Yes, people lie. But there are mechanisms for dealing with liars. Misrepresentation and fraud are serious things. Lawsuits, fines and in an extreme case jail, but on a more immediate level ostracizing. It makes you as a person into an undesirable. It also makes the world as a whole a worse place to live in, which is why such behavior is strongly discouraged, even if it is possible.
That's why we don't structurally go around clubbing old ladies over the head as a revenue model, not because we can't do it or because it would be acted upon by the law (that's for the few who don't get it) but because it is simply a bad thing to do. It is a matter of ethics. That's why if an open source project has a 'No AI' policy you either abide by the policy or you can expect massive backlash.
To think that you could do this and even should do this to make the point is as stupid as walking out and grabbing some old lady's hand bag to prove that it can be done: you are hurting an innocent to prove your point and it will cause a reaction that is at a minimum proportional to what you did and worst case you will be made an example of. This can be the proverbial career ending move. If you are Elon level rich and your inner asshole seeks a way out then yes, you could probably do it. But for normal folks such behavior is highly discouraged. Actions usually have consequences.
Finally: open source is a massive gift to society. The whole reason you can use AI in the first place is because that gift got abused in a way that open source contributors did not anticipate. If you're going around to pollute open source with AI contributions to effectively karma farm you have to wonder why you are so intent on doing that. Is it your purpose to destroy open source? Or is it just because you enjoy destroying stuff in general? I don't see any other options, this is a pathology and it would do you good to introspect on this for a bit instead of to respond with yet another ill conceived reply digging yourself in further. You've gone from 'mildly annoying' to 'wouldn't work with this person for any amount of money because they are a massive liability' in the space of 15 comments. I hope it was worth it to you.
Your comment would be fine without that first bit.
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.
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.
It makes lots of sense to me.
Or a human will provide the fix?
Just like when people started losing their ability to navigate without a GPS/Maps app, you will lose your ability to write solid code, solve problems, hell maybe even read well.
I want my brain to be strong in old age, and I actually love to write code unlike 99% in software apparently (like why did you people even start doing this career.. makes no sense to me).
I'm going to keep writing the code myself! Stop paying Billionaires for their thinking machines, its not going to work out well for you.
I used a coding agent for the majority of my current project and I still got the "build stuff" itch scratched because Engineers are still responsible for the output and they are needed to interface between technical teams, UX, business people etc
> I used a coding agent for the majority of my current project and I still got the "build stuff" itch scratched because Engineers are still responsible for the output and they are needed to interface between technical teams, UX, business people etc
Then you are the opposite of a carpenter or a craftsman, no matter what you think about it yourself.
And yet, I find a coding agent makes it even more fun. I spend less time working on the boilerplate crap that I hate, and a lot less time searching Google and trying to make sense of a dozen half-arsed StackOverflow posts that don't quite answer my question.
I just went through that yesterday with Unity. I did all the leg work to figure out why something didn't work like I expected. Even Google's search engine agent wasn't answering the question. It was a terrible, energy-draining experience that I don't miss at all. I did figure it out in the end, though.
Prior to yesterday, I was thinking that using AIs to do that was making it harder for me to learn things because it was so easy. But comparing what I remember from yesterday to other things I did with the AI, I don't really think that. The AI lets me do it repeatedly, quickly, and I learn by the repetition, and a lot of it. The slow method has just 1 instance, and it takes forever.
This is certainly an exciting time for coders, no matter why they're in the game.
Sure but once you learn long multiplication/division algorithms by hand there's not much point in using them. By high school everyone is using a calculator.
> Just like when people started losing their ability to navigate without a GPS/Maps app
Are you suggesting people shouldn't use Google Maps? Seems kind of nuts. Similar to calculators, the lesson here is that progress works by obviating the need to think about some thing. Paper maps and compasses work the same way, they render some older skill obsolete. The written word made memorization infinitely less valuable (and writing had its critics).
I don't think "LLMs making us dumber" is a real concern. Yes, people will lose some skills. Before calculators, adults were probably way better at doing arithmetic. But this isn't something worth prioritizing.
However, it is worth teaching people to code by hand, just like we still teach arithmetic and times tables. But ultimately, once we've learned these things, we're going to use tools that supercede them. There's nothig new or scary about this, and it will be a significant net win.
But it's a problem of scale.
Calculators are very specific tools. If you are trying to run a computation of some arithmetic/algebraic expression, then they are a great tool. But they're not going to get you far if you need help understanding how to file your taxes.
LLMs are multi-faceted tools. They can help with math, doing taxes, coding, doing research, writing essays, summarizing text, etc. Basically anything that can be condensed into an embedding that the LLM can work with is fair game.
If you're willing to accept that using a tool slowly erodes the skill that tool was made for, then you should also accept that you will see an erosion of MANY skill you currently have.
So the question is whether this is all worth it? Is an increase in productivity worth eroding a strong foundation of general purpose knowledge? Perhaps even the ability to learn in the first place?
I would argue no a million times over, but I'm starting to think that I'm an outlier.
Everyone is vulnerable to the allure of taking shortcuts in life, but I've learned over the years that there is no free lunch. This is going too be quite an expensive trade off for many.
Along the same lines, AI will necessitate a shift where people intentionally use their extra intellectual leisure time. Reading, writing, chess, learning a new language, etc.
Not everyone will do this. Some people will be the intellectual equivalent of obese. But people will figure it out eventually.
Will they? >50% of US adults are overweight or obese. Is this the example you want to hang your hat on?
Where are the stats backing this claim? Obesity levels have not dropped significantly in recent times. Also, any significant change will require government oversight, and we are increasingly heading towards a direction where private interests overrule whats best for the public at large.
>I see no reason to assume the same thing won't happen with AI.
You have the ability to choose what and much you eat. Will you have the ability to forsake AI if your employer forces it upon you, or if to stay competitive in school you have to rely on it? In the same way it's hard to live in society without a smart phone, it's already becoming hard to operate in society without relying on AI. Now extrapolate this out by a decade.
I suggest you watch the AI Dilemma.
If you want a more recent example, google search is an extremely broad tool that has operated similarly.
I think AI will be another rung in the ladder of abstraction. Something will be lost, but it's worth the trade.
You should ask yourself why you're okay with innovations that happened in the past but not okay with innovations happening now. It could just be reflexive conservativism.
Of course there's no guarantee that AI will be more positive than negative, but I see no compelling reason to believe that. Most of the anti-AI sentiment is just people not liking new things.
Because these innovations are not congruent with our most important biological advantage! We are here precisely because we developed the capacity to think critically about hard problems. To relegate our critical faculties to an activity you engage with during a small window of time each day similar to a muscle you exercise at the gym is asinine in my opinion. I firmly believe in the future, people like you will become a new underclass as they have willingly given up their ability to think.
If people who use AI become an "underclass" then people will adapt and...not use AI. But that won't happen. People will use it to augment rather than replace, just like we use other, similar technologies.
And many lose the ability to do long division by high school, where they'll have to relearn it for polynomial long division, which typical school calculators can't handle easily.
I am old now, and the unfortunate truth is that my brain isn't working as fast or as precise as when I was young. LLMs help me maintain some of my coding abilities.
It's like having a non-judgemental co-coder sitting at your side, you can discuss about the code you wrote and it will point out things you didn't think of.
Or I can tap into the immense knowledge about APIs LLMs have to keep up with change. I wouldn't be able to still read that much documentation and keep all of this.