Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2025 06:35:16 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?0K/RgNC+0YHQu9Cw0LIg0JzQsNGI0LrQvg==?= <yaroslaw.mashko@gmail.com> To: paige@paige.bio Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Provisions to the contribution guidelines for using LLM generated code Message-ID: <CAMVwyxK9NhKg2vKY%2BRDUw0rsEMX-50yrXwy6GzLuzjPPO8umag@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <49B92974-E37A-4786-A456-E258D5A1D35E@paige.bio> References: <49B92974-E37A-4786-A456-E258D5A1D35E@paige.bio>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--000000000000a025b2062ce4f4a8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable hi, Paige, are you sure that this lengthy text is not AI generated? You asking questions, like,- is this ... By this, you mean what? Did someone code filesystem? Stackexchange community, for example, stated that AI generated content is prohibited on the web. On comunity web. You trying to bring "AI hallucinations", as you call it, into some codebase? Or you asking about FreeBSD community legal view on the topic? My take is that, if code is generated by AI, people will feel less responsibility for the mistakes. Extrapolate, and we all be in the zone of,- AI did this mistakes, I'm just a mere operator. Why do we need an operator? AI can make mistakes w/o the human assistance. Just mark the final product as,- user will be responsible for any mistakes in the product he had purchased. Banks, for example, do it all the time in their user agreements. =D1=87=D1=82, 30 =D1=8F=D0=BD=D0=B2. 2025 =D0=B3., 04:05 <paige@paige.bio>: > Hi there, > > As y=E2=80=99all have probably heard AI is the new big thing in town and = people > are at a bit of a loss for what it means. Despite the news about the stoc= k > market sell off that came in the wake of the new DeepSeek thing, I=E2=80= =99ve > actually been playing around with this thing called Claude for the past > couple of weeks and I=E2=80=99m still not really sure what to think of it= . I think > it=E2=80=99s really cool to say the least, but I still have a lot of ques= tions > myself. > > More specifically, I=E2=80=99m not really sure at what point does using s= omething > like Claude to create something like a native ExFAT filesystem become an > issue of attribution; > > https://github.com/paigeadelethompson/exfat/tree/main/sys/fs/exfat > > it presumably created this based on the parameters in it=E2=80=99s model > (presumably, it is not actually known how Anthropic=E2=80=99s models work= because > as far as I know that information is proprietary.) I vaguely understand h= ow > it is able to do this and to the best of my knowledge, it doesn=E2=80=99t > plagiarize code but it does generate code based on facts that it can find > in it=E2=80=99s own model about ideas which are potentially subject to pa= tent > restrictions. For what this is worth, I think that people are going to fi= nd > this to be incredibly valuable regardless of whether or not it produces a= n > exact desired result. What it doesn=E2=80=99t get right the first time is= often the > subject of something being really damn close. > > I=E2=80=99m really just dumbfounded by how much it actually can do that I= haven=E2=80=99t > even tried to compile this code for this filesystem it created; it didn= =E2=80=99t > take me more than an hour of saying =E2=80=9Cyes=E2=80=9D following the i= nitial "I'd like > to make an ExFAT driver for FreeBSD in C can you give me the best startin= g > point possible?=E2=80=9D To be honest I kinda had to fact check it a coup= le of > times, it wanted to do things like implementing extattrs which this > filesystem patently doesn=E2=80=99t have. But as soon as I asked it, it s= eemed to > know exactly what I meant: > > "No, you're right - I apologize for adding unnecessary complexity. The > ExFAT specification doesn't include support for extended attributes like > other filesystems (e.g., UFS or ext4). The only attributes ExFAT supports > are the basic DOS/FAT attributes we already have defined=E2=80=9D > > And then it proceeded to make changes to remove the stubs and so forth > (which it may not have done right but I haven=E2=80=99t gotten that far y= et.) In > fact, I don=E2=80=99t really feel like I can realistically move forward w= ith this > (because I=E2=80=99ll have to fork $20 to get more time out of it) but al= so I just > don=E2=80=99t really know whether or not this is okay. Obviously I want t= o say yes, > but I get the impression that some people might not be okay with this, > especially if what it creates is not well understood or violates copyrigh= t > laws. > > "Under U.S. law, you cannot patent an idea, but you may be able to protec= t > your idea by bringing it to life.=E2=80=9D As far as I know the licensing= for ExFAT > is a little bit of a gray area. It=E2=80=99s Microsoft=E2=80=99s patent, = there=E2=80=99s a GPL > implementation that exists but asides from that I don=E2=80=99t know if i= t=E2=80=99s > technically okay to make another implementation that is licensed any othe= r > way. I assume so, but it=E2=80=99s not unimaginable that even simply inge= sting an > ExFAT filesystem could come with some kind of stipulation. > > And I=E2=80=99m sure some people might even think =E2=80=9Cwhy would you,= there=E2=80=99s a FUSE > implementation for this already=E2=80=9D and you know because FUSE is FUS= E and this > is an implementation of ExFAT that uses VFS. Also ExFAT/fuse does have > problems but it works (sorta) in a pinch. I=E2=80=99d personally be more = interested > in improving something that is part of core FreeBSD than I would anything > having to do with a port that I have to install in addition to the OS > itself in order to use it. > > The reason why it matters; I just really like ExFAT. Virtually everything > now has native support for it out of the box except for UEFI (they should= , > surprised Microsoft hasn=E2=80=99t pushed the standard to adopt it given = that .WIM > files can certainly exceed 4.3GB on modern versions of Windows. It just > makes good sense to me to use it, even though it=E2=80=99s not a journale= d > filesystem. Using parchive is not lost on me, but I=E2=80=99ve seldom eve= r truly > needed it even with ExFAT. > > Maybe I=E2=80=99m not even really trying to drive this to completion as m= uch as I > just needed an example and am just wanting to understand are people alrea= dy > doing this? Is it possible that people have already done this and nobody = is > really aware of it? I=E2=80=99d like to think if you can then you certain= ly should > but where do you draw the line, and should there perhaps be conventions f= or > keeping track of code in FreeBSD that is produced by LLMs? Maybe there > already is and I just haven=E2=80=99t found it yet but it wouldn=E2=80=99= t come as any > surprise if there weren=E2=80=99t given this is all still kind of novel. = Either way > I=E2=80=99m sure there are things much more substantial than ExFAT worth = trying, > but there should probably be something of an understanding about what is > and isn=E2=80=99t okay. I wonder if what we don=E2=80=99t know about prop= rietary LLMs like > Claude could potentially be an easily overlooked problem that could have > legal consequences later. > > In any case I=E2=80=99m sure people will figure it out, but if anybody wa= s looking > for a cue to discuss this I mean.. it=E2=80=99d be really useful to me if= FreeBSD > supported ExFAT out of the box (especially since I can=E2=80=99t get to m= y offline > archive of the ports and it=E2=80=99s distfiles without it.) The only ava= ilable > implementations at present are GPL=E2=80=94 so can we just like=E2=80=A6 = generate an > implementation with Claude and license it BSD? I honestly wish that my > friend hadn=E2=80=99t insisted on showing me this kinda because I hoped t= o avoid > something that I know is certainly going to have repercussions for the wa= y > things are currently done, but I can=E2=80=99t unsee this and I feel like= I=E2=80=99ve been > =E2=80=9Cdoing it wrong=E2=80=9D my whole life. > > -Paige > --000000000000a025b2062ce4f4a8 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <p dir=3D"ltr">hi, Paige,</p> <p dir=3D"ltr">are you sure that this lengthy text is not AI generated?</p> <p dir=3D"ltr">You asking questions, like,- is this ... By this, you mean w= hat? Did someone code filesystem?</p> <p dir=3D"ltr">Stackexchange community, for example, stated that AI generat= ed content is prohibited on the web. On comunity web.</p> <p dir=3D"ltr">You trying to bring "AI hallucinations", as you ca= ll it, into some codebase? Or you asking about FreeBSD community legal view= on the topic?</p> <p dir=3D"ltr">My take is that, if code is generated by AI, people will fee= l less responsibility for the mistakes. Extrapolate, and we all be in the z= one of,- AI did this mistakes, I'm just a mere operator.</p> <p dir=3D"ltr"> Why do we need an operator? AI can make mistakes w/o the hu= man assistance.=C2=A0=C2=A0 Just mark the final product as,- user will be r= esponsible for any mistakes in the product he had purchased. Banks, for exa= mple, do it all the time in their user agreements.</p> <br><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class= =3D"gmail_attr">=D1=87=D1=82, 30 =D1=8F=D0=BD=D0=B2. 2025 =D0=B3., 04:05 &= lt;paige@paige.bio>:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D= "margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi there, <= br> <br> As y=E2=80=99all have probably heard AI is the new big thing in town and pe= ople are at a bit of a loss for what it means. Despite the news about the s= tock market sell off that came in the wake of the new DeepSeek thing, I=E2= =80=99ve actually been playing around with this thing called Claude for the= past couple of weeks and I=E2=80=99m still not really sure what to think o= f it. I think it=E2=80=99s really cool to say the least, but I still have a= lot of questions myself. <br> <br> More specifically, I=E2=80=99m not really sure at what point does using som= ething like Claude to create something like a native ExFAT filesystem becom= e an issue of attribution; <br> <br> <a href=3D"https://github.com/paigeadelethompson/exfat/tree/main/sys/fs/exf= at" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/paig= eadelethompson/exfat/tree/main/sys/fs/exfat</a><br> <br> it presumably created this based on the parameters in it=E2=80=99s model (p= resumably, it is not actually known how Anthropic=E2=80=99s models work bec= ause as far as I know that information is proprietary.) I vaguely understan= d how it is able to do this and to the best of my knowledge, it doesn=E2=80= =99t plagiarize code but it does generate code based on facts that it can f= ind in it=E2=80=99s own model about ideas which are potentially subject to = patent restrictions. For what this is worth, I think that people are going = to find this to be incredibly valuable regardless of whether or not it prod= uces an exact desired result. What it doesn=E2=80=99t get right the first t= ime is often the subject of something being really damn close. <br> <br> I=E2=80=99m really just dumbfounded by how much it actually can do that I h= aven=E2=80=99t even tried to compile this code for this filesystem it creat= ed; it didn=E2=80=99t take me more than an hour of saying =E2=80=9Cyes=E2= =80=9D following the initial "I'd like to make an ExFAT driver for= FreeBSD in C can you give me the best starting point possible?=E2=80=9D To= be honest I kinda had to fact check it a couple of times, it wanted to do = things like implementing extattrs which this filesystem patently doesn=E2= =80=99t have. But as soon as I asked it, it seemed to know exactly what I m= eant: <br> <br> "No, you're right - I apologize for adding unnecessary complexity.= The ExFAT specification doesn't include support for extended attribute= s like other filesystems (e.g., UFS or ext4). The only attributes ExFAT sup= ports are the basic DOS/FAT attributes we already have defined=E2=80=9D<br> <br> And then it proceeded to make changes to remove the stubs and so forth (whi= ch it may not have done right but I haven=E2=80=99t gotten that far yet.) I= n fact, I don=E2=80=99t really feel like I can realistically move forward w= ith this (because I=E2=80=99ll have to fork $20 to get more time out of it)= but also I just don=E2=80=99t really know whether or not this is okay. Obv= iously I want to say yes, but I get the impression that some people might n= ot be okay with this, especially if what it creates is not well understood = or violates copyright laws. <br> <br> "Under U.S. law, you cannot patent an idea, but you may be able to pro= tect your idea by bringing it to life.=E2=80=9D As far as I know the licens= ing for ExFAT is a little bit of a gray area. It=E2=80=99s Microsoft=E2=80= =99s patent, there=E2=80=99s a GPL implementation that exists but asides fr= om that I don=E2=80=99t know if it=E2=80=99s technically okay to make anoth= er implementation that is licensed any other way. I assume so, but it=E2=80= =99s not unimaginable that even simply ingesting an ExFAT filesystem could = come with some kind of stipulation.<br> <br> And I=E2=80=99m sure some people might even think =E2=80=9Cwhy would you, t= here=E2=80=99s a FUSE implementation for this already=E2=80=9D and you know= because FUSE is FUSE and this is an implementation of ExFAT that uses VFS.= Also ExFAT/fuse does have problems but it works (sorta) in a pinch. I=E2= =80=99d personally be more interested in improving something that is part o= f core FreeBSD than I would anything having to do with a port that I have t= o install in addition to the OS itself in order to use it.<br> <br> The reason why it matters; I just really like ExFAT. Virtually everything n= ow has native support for it out of the box except for UEFI (they should, s= urprised Microsoft hasn=E2=80=99t pushed the standard to adopt it given tha= t .WIM files can certainly exceed 4.3GB on modern versions of Windows. It j= ust makes good sense to me to use it, even though it=E2=80=99s not a journa= led filesystem. Using parchive is not lost on me, but I=E2=80=99ve seldom e= ver truly needed it even with ExFAT.<br> <br> Maybe I=E2=80=99m not even really trying to drive this to completion as muc= h as I just needed an example and am just wanting to understand are people = already doing this? Is it possible that people have already done this and n= obody is really aware of it? I=E2=80=99d like to think if you can then you = certainly should but where do you draw the line, and should there perhaps b= e conventions for keeping track of code in FreeBSD that is produced by LLMs= ? Maybe there already is and I just haven=E2=80=99t found it yet but it wou= ldn=E2=80=99t come as any surprise if there weren=E2=80=99t given this is a= ll still kind of novel. Either way I=E2=80=99m sure there are things much m= ore substantial than ExFAT worth trying, but there should probably be somet= hing of an understanding about what is and isn=E2=80=99t okay. I wonder if = what we don=E2=80=99t know about proprietary LLMs like Claude could potenti= ally be an easily overlooked problem that could have legal consequences lat= er. <br> <br> In any case I=E2=80=99m sure people will figure it out, but if anybody was = looking for a cue to discuss this I mean.. it=E2=80=99d be really useful to= me if FreeBSD supported ExFAT out of the box (especially since I can=E2=80= =99t get to my offline archive of the ports and it=E2=80=99s distfiles with= out it.) The only available implementations at present are GPL=E2=80=94 so = can we just like=E2=80=A6 generate an implementation with Claude and licens= e it BSD? I honestly wish that my friend hadn=E2=80=99t insisted on showing= me this kinda because I hoped to avoid something that I know is certainly = going to have repercussions for the way things are currently done, but I ca= n=E2=80=99t unsee this and I feel like I=E2=80=99ve been =E2=80=9Cdoing it = wrong=E2=80=9D my whole life. <br> <br> -Paige<br> </blockquote></div> --000000000000a025b2062ce4f4a8--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAMVwyxK9NhKg2vKY%2BRDUw0rsEMX-50yrXwy6GzLuzjPPO8umag>