|
|
|
|
|
|
by cyphar
217 days ago
|
|
|
> I would need to spend hours of time to articulate exactly how uncomfortable this would make me if I was working along side you. I think this came out a little wrong -- my point was that if we are going to go with a middle-ground approach then we need to have a much lower tolerance for people who try to abuse the trust we gave in providing a middle-ground. (Also, there is little purpose in having a policy if you don't enforce it.) For instance, someone knowing that I will deprioritise LLM PRs, and instead of deciding to write the code themselves or accept that that what I work on is my own personal decision to make, they instead decide to try to mask their LLM PR and lie about it -- I would consider this to be completely unacceptable behaviour in any kind of professional relationship. (For what it's worth, I also consider it bad form to submit any patches or bug reports generated by any tool -- LLM or not -- without explaining what the tool was and what you did with it. The default assumption I have when talking to a human is that they personally did or saw something, but if a tool did it then not mentioning it feels dishonest in more ways than one.) I did see that lobste.rs did a fairly cute trick to try to block agentic LLMs[1]. [1]: https://github.com/lobsters/lobsters/pull/1733 |
|
|
I think it came out exactly perfectly. Unrelated to this specific topic, I've been thinking a lot lately about reward vs punishment as a framework for promoting pro-social environments. I didn't read far into what you said. I was merely pattern matching it back to the common mistakes I see and want to discourage.
> but if a tool did it then not mentioning it feels dishonest in more ways than one.
Yeah, plagiarism is shockingly common. It's a sign of lacking the skill or ability to entertain 2rd order, or 3rd order thoughts/ideas.