- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
New development policy: code generated by a large language model or similar technology (e.g. ChatGPT, GitHub Copilot) is presumed to be tainted (i.e. of unclear copyright, not fitting NetBSD’s licensing goals) and cannot be committed to NetBSD.
You must log in or register to comment.
Ok but how is anyone meant to know if you generated your docstrings using copilot?
How do they know that you wrote it yourself and didn’t just steal it?
This is a rule to protect themselves. If there is ever a case around this, they can push the blame to the person that committed the code for breaking that rule.
This is the only reason rules exist, not to stop people doing a thing but to be able to enforce or defect responsibility when they do.
They’ll use AI to detect it… obviously. ☺️
I’m saddened to use this phrase but it is literally virtue signalling. They have no way of knowing lmao
It’s also probably to make things slightly simpler from a legal perspective.
That makes sense yes
It’s actually simple to detect: if the code sucks or is written by a bad programmer, and the docstrings are perfect, it’s AI. I’ve seen this more than once and it never fails.
Are they long, super verbose and often incorrect?
Magic, I guess ?
Because they’ll be shit?
Docstrings based on the method signature and literal contents of a method or class are completely pointless, and that’s all copilot can do. It can’t Intuit anything that docstrings are actually there for.
So proud of you NetBSD, this is why I sponsor you, slam dunk for the future. I’m working on a NetBSD hardening script and Rice as we speak, great OS with some fantastically valuable niche applications and I think, a new broad approach I’m cooking up, a University Edition. I did hardening for all the other BSD, I saved the best for last!
If you would like to vote on whether, or by what year, AI will be in the Linux Kernel on Infosec.space:
I never felt so close to try NetBSD as after reading this 😃
