It's great they are doing mitigations, but they admit themselves, in fine print, that this will not protect you from the vulnerability
Why is word circulating that you can just sign up for Cloudflare and be 100% protected from this? They are burying the leed and trying to get new customers, and it's working.
I don't feel like any further definition is required. You would surely know if you had used an LLM, AI or agent while creating the code. Keeping things broad allows for simpler enforcement, otherwise you end up in the weeds arguing if seeing the Google AI search summary counts as LLM influence.
Lol. You say no further definition is required - then proceed to outline your interpretation which is quite distinct from others. Clearly further definition is required.
If you're serious about an anti-AI policy, you owe the world a definition. It's not hard. You are making a strong statement - an outright ban. Make an equally strong case for what is and is not in scope. You must get in the weeds, since it is you yourself that is banning the weeds.
To quote Gustave Flaubert: “The art of writing is the art of discovering what you believe.” Failing to write the definition is a strong signal that no one thought through the problem.
No, my example is one of where you end up if you start doing granular definition (and demanding to know where the line is, to the point of absurdity).
A broad stroke based on community trust and your own self-evaluation of a very simple rule is acceptable here.
If a contributor wishes to poke the edges of the policy to try and find the line of acceptable AI/LLM usage in the project, they are probably not the kind of contributor they want.
> If a contributor wishes to poke the edges of the policy to try and find the line of acceptable AI/LLM usage in the project, they are probably not the kind of contributor they want
I think this is where it becomes a question of whether it’s an ideological rejection of LLMs or a technical/practical rejection of LLMs.
A project that is rejecting contributions where LLMs are used purely because of the “we can’t handle the amount of newbie generated inbound slop” would, in theory at least, have minimal issue where the contribution is, in fact, indistinguishable from human-only contribution. “This person has put together a solid clean patch that solves a real problem” sounds like a great kind of contributor to have.
On the other hand, a project that rejects LLM-assisted patches because of ideology or social or environmental concerns might actually hate a contributor like this even more than a random drive-by slop contributor.
critical point! I'd like to at least see the nature of the rejection spelled out in the policy.
Am I offending you personally by having used AI at all? Or is my contribution just running afoul of your technical judgement?
In order to get to "Is AI coding useful?" you need to personally work through "Is AI even acceptable?" - socially, environmentally, legally, biologically, militarily, technically, philosophically - I can absolutely respect those who say "hell no" to any of it!
- You can say "hell no" to contribution with any AI, due ethical concerns. Say it with your voice, not soft ban language. State your ethical objections.
- Much different to saying "hell no" to any AI contributions because of quality concerns; you know what's best for quality, security, bugs, etc.
- Much different still to saying "it depends" based on the nature of the contribution.
- Much different still to saying "yolo claude can commit to main".
They are all valid viewpoints. But deserve significantly different AI policies. Don't make me guess.
Grew up in farm country and on a (hobby) cattle farm, can confirm, the best tool for between two and three[1] of those is a tractor.
Though yes obviously if you have an actual working farm, in any capacity, you need a truck that can tow trailers with decent weight on them.
I have noticed truck ownership patterns vary with region, which may be why some people bristle at the notion that vanity-driven truck ownership is common. It's extremely common in the Midwest, city suburbs are full of people who bought an expensive truck either because that's the purchase that'll get them positive attention from their peers at work or in their friend group (and because other options for show-off cars might get them ribbing instead of kudos) or for aspirations they'll never fulfill ("yeah, I'll totally tow a boat to the lake every weekend! Maybe I'll even buy a fifth-wheel camper!" then they end up doing it like twice a year and never buy the camper). It's less common in (at least large parts of) the Northeast. The "I have a nice car people may comment positively on or otherwise approve of" purchases here swing more Volvo and Audi and such, even out in what the locals consider the "country" (it's... not, LOL).
[1] Where are the goats being hauled? Just on your property, between fields? To somewhere farther away? On roads? How far on roads? Truck still might be the wrong tool, or at least not better.
To the risk of contradicting myself, the less time I got, the more tempting it's been to jump into Apple's ecosystem. I love the hardware, I appreciate Apple's apparent care for privacy, but I just love my linux too much both in terms of UX and for what it represents.
Ha, and I completely missed the "Linux" part of your post, sorry. I do enjoy both. Apple, like you say, is a nice default for me because they clearly care about privacy to a reasonable extent.
"This is a concern broadly and future looking" does not in any way mean LG TVs are doing it now; there would be proof of this if they were, it would be easy to catch.
I think I would argue that linking to the security problem(s) and then writing about their style and how they probably came to be counts as discussion, but to each their own.
No logs provided. No replication case. A month old, un-responded to issue. The template for a bug report filled out completely incorrectly.
What is this doing here? If OP is the person responding, could they not at least have provided those details to help the bug report become more well rounded?
The mind boggles. While this isn't a great example, I'm worried about the direction "developers" are going in.
I always suspected this was possible but having it demonstrated is excellent. I would assume this would be of most benefit on an OpenWRT box which _does_ support hardware offload!
These were rolled out before the exploit became public.
I would wouldn't describe that as damning.
reply