If the input is "give ID", what the software claims to do is almost meaningless since you cannot prove that software was running. What do I care that someone can tell me they built a privacy-first way of validating IDs/age if I cannot be sure that is the software they are running?
They can just as easily save the ID to disk and return "all good" for all I know.
It requires that Bob proves posession of a private key, that only he has ever had. That private key could be generated specifically for the commitment that he got from Alice.
I don't think their homepage looks good, and for so much attention to detail the padding around text titles and other spacing, specially on mobile, doesn't look good. Not of the elements they showcase but of their own landing page.
That is an easy way to game the whole system. Create a bunch of accounts and repos, cross vouch across all of them, generate a bunch of fake AI PRs and approve them all because none of the repos are real anyway. Then all you need is to find a way to connect your web of trust to a wider web of trust and you have a whole army of vouched sock puppet accounts.
He is not polite, he is of the utmost rudeness. As a reply to being pointed to the fact that he copied so much code that the generated code included someone else's name in the License, his reply was https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/pull/14369/changes/ce372a60bd...
I struggle to think how someone thinks this is polite. Is politeness to you just not using curse words?
Admittedly, his handling of this aspect was perhaps less than ideal, but I cannot see any impoliteness here whatsoever. As a matter of fact, I struggle to think how you could think otherwise.
But I am biased. After having lived a number of years in a country where I would say the average understanding of politeness is vastly different from where I've grown up, I've learned that there is just a difference of opinion of what is polite and what isn't. I have probably been affected by that too.
Ah, I see what you mean - you're making a distinction between someone's speech and someone's acts. Fair enough. In that sense, you would argue that the action of dropping a 13k loc PR is impolite, and I can see that.
It's just that in my reading, I did not find his demeanor in the comment thread to be impolite. He was trying to sell his contribution and I think that whatever he wrote was using respectful language.
He responds to a thoughtful and detailed 600-word comment from a maintainer with a dismissive "Here's the AI-written copyright analysis..." + thousands of words of slop.
The effort asymmetry is what's rude. The maintainers take their project very seriously (as they should) and are generous enough with their time to invite contribution from outsiders. Showing up and dropping 13k lines of code, posting comments copy+pasted from a chat window, and insisting that your contribution is trustworthy not because you thought it through but because you fed it through a few LLMs shows that you don't respect the maintainers' time. In other words: you are being rude. They would have to put in more upfront effort to review your contribution than you put in to create it! Then they have to maintain it in perpetuity.
Well, I wouldn't necessarily call it "going out of your way to be accommodating", but impolite is just not the word I'd choose to characterize it. I can see why others might but it's just my personal feeling that I don't think that this is the correct adjective here.
That said, I don't feel like this topic is important enough to go on about it, I probably spend enough keystrokes on it already.
interpreting his words on a literal basis , the PR submitter isn't being directly impolite ...
if you will , place yourself in the shoes of the repository maintainer. a random person (with a personal agenda) has popped up trying to sell you a solution (that he doesn't understand) to a problem (that you don't see as problematic). after you spending literal hours patiently explaining why the proposition is not acceptable , this random person still continues attempting to sell his solution.
do you see any impoliteness in the reframed scenario ?
I think there's nothing wrong with trying to sell your solution, and I'm skeptical about the "literal hours" that you claim.
The way I interpret this thread is that the PR poster had a certain itch and came up with a vibe-coded solution that helped him. Now he's trying to make that available for others too. The maintainers don't want it because it's too large a PR to review properly and because they don't want to have to maintain it afterwards.
I can totally see both positions.
I was just referring to the fact that - in my opinion - unlike others here, his writing did not appear impolite to me. But you know, that's just me. I thought that he was trying to sell his code, and it's not unusual to get rejected at first, so I can't blame him for trying to defend his contribution. All I'm saying is that I thought he did so in a respectful manner, but of course you could argue that the whole endeavor was already an act of impoliteness, in a way?!
That, respectfulness and politeness are more from intentions/actions than from speech alone. Politeness of language without any respect for the actual function of that speech is pointless. Indeed, that this what the LLMs are trained for. Form over function. And many humans get fooled by it and are also clueless like the person dropping the steaming turd of a PR.
If that's true, why do some multi-person bands have some good looking people that can't sing, even after decades of going? Do they not practice every day? These are famous people but I never seem to have seen any famous bad singer which eventually becomes a good singer.
Ed Sheeran seems to have gone from objectively awful to subjectively passable. There is a clip of him on british TV host Graham Norton’ show playing a recording of some pretty terrible singing.
There's so many examples of famous fat people that got skinny. I really struggle with this idea that it's all just muscle / muscle control to sing well under the lack of examples.
~Everything will use AI at some point. This is like requiring a disclaimer for using Javascript back when it was introduced. It's unfortunate but I think ultimately a losing battle.
Plus if you want to mandate it, hidden markers (stenography) to verify which model generated the text so people can independently verify if articles were written by humans (emitted directly by the model) is probably the only feasible way. But its not like humans are impartial anyway already when writing news so I don't even see the point of that.
It would make sense to have a more general law about accountability for the contents of news. If news is significantly misleading or plagiarizing, it shouldn’t matter if it is due to the use of AI or not, the human editorship should be liable in either case.
This is a concept at least in some EU countries, that there has to always be one person responsible in terms of press law for what is being published.
That's government censorship and it not allowed here, unlike the EU. As for plagiarism, every single major news outlet is guilty of it in basically every single article. Have you ever seen the NYT cite a source?
You’re still allowed to say virtually anything you want if you make it clear that it’s an opinion and not news reporting.
Not citing sources doesn’t imply plagiarism, as long as you don’t misrepresent someone else’s research as your own (such as in an academic paper). Giving an account of news that you heard elsewhere in your own words isn’t plagiarism. The hurdles for plagiarism are generally relatively high.
If a news person in the USA publishes something that's actually criminal, the the corporate veil can be pierced. If the editor printed CSAM they would be in prison lickity split. Unless they have close connections to the executive.
Most regulations around disclaimers in the USA are just civil and the corporate veil won't be pierced.
I agree with that the most. That's why I added the bit about humans. In the end if what you're writing is not sourced properly or too biased it shouldn't matter if AI is involved or not. The truth is more the thing that matters with news.
They can just as easily save the ID to disk and return "all good" for all I know.
reply