Based. This is great news.
post
How can they tell if it's AI-assisted?
if you are remotely a dev, you know first sight
What if I’m in-office dev?
That is an absolutely terrible standard. In fact, that's technically not even a standard. The "I know it when I see it" measure is literally the logic used in censorship. It allows cognitive biases to seep in with no check. A lack of hard metrics means that there' zero ways there can be any objective consistency. And finally, this kind of rationale makes the biggest sin that I can think of, "non-falsifiability".
Whatever people's opinion on AI are or are not. This logic should wholly be rejected in every instance it is brought forth. It is literally the antithesis of rational thought.
no, as someone whose entire job is code reviewing ai slop you LITERALLY know at first sight just by looking at it what is written by an LLM and what is written by a real person.
as someone who has a similar job, i don’t think it’s so obvious. there’s a lot of middle ground between an AI slop PR and artisanal, hand-crafted code. if i use a library or algorithm or pattern suggested by ChatGPT or use Copilot to autocomplete a simple function or have Claude generate test cases, that’s all “AI assisted”.
Sure, but that's not what this is about. This isn't just banning AI-written code, it's banning AI-assisted code. If you even use a Google Gemini "AI-summary" at the top of your search results for something simple like the name of a function, then your code is AI-assisted.
There's no way anyone can detect that. And banning it is silly.
But the point is, imho, that if nobody can tell if it's AI-assisted, then who cares? This is more for them to fire a warning shot that you'd better be sure your AI-assisted code is good enough to pass, or they can reject or and, potentially, ban you without notice.
Yeah. But this guy says we can't. I wonder what metric they use to assert "the sky is blue" is a true statement.
Probably needs to XP a bit...
I agree that you can tell if the whole code base is AI written. But stuff like dependency upgrades being handled by an AI is impossible to detect, IMHO.
That reminds me of my friend who said (a long time ago) that Japanese girls are prettier than Chinese girls, I asked him how he recognises them, since I knew he didn't know any Chinese or Japanese personally, he said, that when he sees an Asian girl, he just knows, if he likes her, she is Japanese , if he doesn't like her she must be Chinese (and no, he didn't talk to any of them to confirm his "genius" theory... Hey, we were both young, talking to girls was difficult, even more difficult than realising there are a lot more Asian countries than just two)
What I meant is: it's stupid, if you recognise AI assisted code because it's bad, maybe just say that you don't accept shitty code
I'm no competent, or no professional, dev, yes, but I absolutely cannot tell if it's AI generated, let alone AI assisted(whatever that is) code.
That only was the case with ChatGPT3.x era.
Well, I was already sold on flatpaks, but now Flathub is going to be my main repo.
If ChatGpt is telling me how good I am while I code, is that AI assisted coding?
Good. I hope this puts a dent in the number of new projects that use AI. I also hope Flathub implements a system to clearly flag existing submissions that have used it.
There is no way people will change their workflow because of flathub. They will just not use it anymore.
I wasn't a fan of flathub or flatpacks but this gives a glimmer of hope that there's at least a glimmer of hope for it.
Death and taxes are inevitable as well but I don't see yall being earlier adopters for that
I'll just say that assuming this policy excludes vulnerability/pen testing like Mozilla with Mythos then this is seriously going to be an extremely naive PR (public relations) only move. Obviously actual programmers not bot laziness for coding is essential for software people rely on and I get allowing vibe coding also destroys programmer (and general LLM user's) brains but to keep up with our now LLM real world reality you need to be realistic not just virtue signalling for purity.
Nah, it's really not necessary. I'm senior dev at a large software company you've absolutely heard of and I'm just as productive as my colleagues who use LLMs. My tasks usually take fewer PRs as well, since there are fewer bugs that need to be fixed.
I still don't understand why people are foaming at the mouth about LLMs. They're fucking awful at writing software.
I still don’t understand why people are foaming at the mouth about LLMs. They’re fucking awful at writing software.
That's because you appear to actually have the skills required for your job.
Of course it's not necessary. I'm a way-beyond-senior dev who laughed at LLMs up until a few months ago when trusted friends, whose competence is not in question, told me they got good usage out of them.
I decided to challenge my convictions and sat down and took the time to learn how to use LLM assistants (I tried everyting from full vibe coding to manual gatekeeping of suggestions).
Now I use them for my own personal projects, and I'm much more productive (for various reasons - but one is that the initial friction of oh yet another thing I have to learn just to do X is much lower. I have no boss telling me what to do, and I select my projects myself. If they didn't bring any benefits I wouldn't use them.
top 50 comments