Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki

wiki.mutable.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 136 posts

Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki

#101

Post by bbor »

oshams wrote: post #51
paxys wrote: post #49

The entire point of a Wiki is that it can be collaboratively edited. This is static documentation, just with a Wikipedia-like UI.

Would this be your top request? We're thinking of adding that functionality.

Consider leaning into “wiki” features fully so you don’t have to lose your name, and adding an edit button isn’t gonna be enough for most people IMO. As you can probably tell from these unusually hostile comments for HN (I think someone above even swore!), people are understandably protective of the wiki movement. It’s a bright, persistent star in a darkening internet, so seeing people use it to make money can be tough.

For example: what if instead of one document creator bot, you had an ensemble of personas that act out the motions of wiki editing - many diverse sources submitting small edits, experts reviewing edits before inclusion, etc. Basically just turning the simple 1-step citation verification you mentioned in another comment into a complex stage play of sorts, both for the sake of the bots (would probably cut down on hallucinations to follow Wikipedia procedures) and the humans (what’s the point of a verification tool that you can’t follow along with and meta-verify?). This also solves the edit problem, since humans can follow the same procedure and get the same automated reviews.

It wouldnt hurt to go open source, either! Either way cool project, Godspeed.

Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki

#102

Post by rajamaka »

elicksaur wrote: post #85
oshams wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great question, here's our plan: 1. Allow users to give feedback on wikis and individual sections (we already have this) 2. Increase accuracy - we will continually push for this. Auto wiki v2 will be significantly more accurate AND informative. 3. Allow for GH repo owners to edit or modify content (seems thats common feedback on this launch). 4. General education and encouragement for people to read the wikis and cli…

So now a GH owner has to maintain their own documentation and your website for you?

I think either this product works well, is successful and this is a non issue. Or it doesn't work and nobody ever hears of it again and this is also a non issue.

Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki

#103

Post by TachyonicBytes »

oshams wrote: post #86
TachyonicBytes wrote: post #40

As long as this is happening, might as well try some of my favorites: https://github.com/wasm3/wasm3 , https://github.com/WebAssembly/wabt , https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime

So sorry, missed this, we're on it! Great choices btw. Wasm related stuff is a good test for auto wiki.

I guess it could be a good test. Maybe comparing very similar medium-sized projects, like wasmtime and wasmer, can give insight into what works better

Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki

#106

Post by 8organicbits »

I think this falls into a common mistake people make about documentation. Good documentation doesn't explain what the code does, it explains why the code is written the way it is, the constraints that caused this decision to be made and even alternatives not considered. You cant really guess those things by looking a code. I'm a fan of ADRs for that reason.

Honestly this looks overly verbose to me, a common LLM problem. The mistakes others cite, are also pretty concerning.

https://adr.github.io/

Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki

#107

Post by RamblingCTO »

At least you have a big red flag of projects using that and you can keep your distance

Why I'm saying that? I use GitHub Copilot on a daily basis and it utterly fucks us over on a daily basis as well. You have to be really careful to trust the generated code. Especially boilerplate code is hard to look through. So I wouldn't trust any auto-generated anything that wasn't manually verified (which I argue is more error prone than writing it manually in the first place). And then there's always the argument of "document why you did it like that", not "document what the code does". Of the former, you'll have no records in your code.

Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki

#108

Post by holoduke »

I dont like this. What i would like is somekind of virtual layer on top of the codebase which describes the code just a little better. But only by changing variable names, code build up. Not by adding comments. Because good code doesnt need to have comments everywhere.

Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki

#109

Post by syrusakbary »

oshams wrote: post #86
TachyonicBytes wrote: post #40

As long as this is happening, might as well try some of my favorites: https://github.com/wasm3/wasm3 , https://github.com/WebAssembly/wabt , https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime

So sorry, missed this, we're on it! Great choices btw. Wasm related stuff is a good test for auto wiki.

Just suggested as well Wasmer on Twitter! https://github.com/wasmerio/wasmer

Looking forward to seeing the results :)

Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki

#110

Post by _a_a_a_ »

8organicbits wrote: post #106

I think this falls into a common mistake people make about documentation. Good documentation doesn't explain what the code does, it explains why the code is written the way it is, the constraints that caused this decision to be made and even alternatives not considered. You cant really guess those things by looking a code. I'm a fan of ADRs for that reason. Honestly this looks overly verbose to me, a common LLM probl…

Good point, completely agree and interesting link, thanks
Post reply on HN