←back to thread

Using LLMs at Oxide

(rfd.shared.oxide.computer)
694 points steveklabnik | 7 comments | 07 Dec 25 01:17 UTC | HN request time: 0.401s | source | bottom
Show context
csb6 ◴[07 Dec 25 06:11 UTC] No.46179547[source]▶
Strange to see no mention of potential copyright violations found in LLM-generated code (e.g. LLMs reproducing code from Github verbatim without respecting the license). I would think that would be a pretty important consideration for any software development company, especially one that produces so much free software.
replies(4): >>46179678 #>>46179797 #>>46179941 #>>46188231 #
dboreham ◴[07 Dec 25 06:40 UTC] No.46179678[source]▶
Is there current generation LLMs do this? I suppose I mean "do this any more than human developers do".
replies(1): >>46180015 #
theresistor ◴[07 Dec 25 07:52 UTC] No.46180015[source]▶
A very recent example: https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/pull/14369
replies(2): >>46180102 #>>46180413 #
1. phyzome ◴[07 Dec 25 08:16 UTC] No.46180102[source]▶
...what a remarkable thread.
replies(1): >>46180509 #
2. menaerus ◴[07 Dec 25 09:53 UTC] No.46180509[source]▶
Right? If this is really true, that some random folk without compiler engineering experience, implemented a completely new feature in ocaml compiler by prompting the LLM to produce the code for him, then I think it really is remarkable.
replies(2): >>46181474 #>>46182364 #
3. ccortes ◴[07 Dec 25 13:17 UTC] No.46181474[source]▶
Oh wow, is that what you got from this?

It seems more like a non experienced guy asked the LLM to implement something and the LLM just output what and experienced guy did before, and it even gave him the credit

replies(2): >>46181940 #>>46182770 #
4. rcxdude ◴[07 Dec 25 14:34 UTC] No.46181940{3}[source]▶
Copyright notices and signatures in generative AI output are generally a result of the expectation created by the training data that such things exist, and are generally unrelated to how much the output corresponds to any particular piece of training data, and especially to who exactly produced that work.

(It is, of course, exceptionally lazy to leave such things in if you are using the LLM to assist you with a task, and can cause problems of false attribution. Especially in this case where it seems to have just picked a name of one of the maintainers of the project)

5. kfajdsl ◴[07 Dec 25 15:26 UTC] No.46182364[source]▶
It’s one thing for you (yes, you, the user using the tool) to generate code you don’t understand for a side project or one off tool. It’s another thing to expect your code to be upstreamed into a large project and let others take on the maintenance burden, not to mention review code you haven’t even reviewed yourself!

Note: I, myself, am guilty of forking projects, adding some simple feature I need with an LLM quickly because I don’t want to take the time to understand the codebase, and using it personally. I don’t attempt to upstream changes like this and waste maintainers’ time until I actually take the time myself to understand the project, the issue, and the solution.

replies(1): >>46182814 #
6. menaerus ◴[07 Dec 25 16:15 UTC] No.46182770{3}[source]▶
Did you take a look at the code? Given your response I figure you did not because if you did you would see that the code was _not_ cloned but genuinely compiled by the LLM.
7. menaerus ◴[07 Dec 25 16:19 UTC] No.46182814{3}[source]▶
What are you talking about? It was ridiculously useful debugging feature that nobody in their sanity would block because "added maintenance". MR was rejected purely because of political/social reasons.