Let's see how it fares against a Nix flake: https://github.com/hyprland-community/hyprland-nix
We like it when users bring us their toughest challenges!
Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki
81–90 of 136 posts
Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki
#82How are you going to handle this scenario:
- Person reads your auto wiki explanation of some part of a codebase.
- The explanation is incorrect.
- The person, believing your explanation as authoritative, complains to the developers of the codebase. Maybe opens an issue on an open-source project, posts on a discord or the like.
- The maintainers now have to deal with this misinformation adding overhead to their workload.
As someone who has helped others who were led astray by ChatGPT, this setup adds a ton of mental baggage to the person’s ask for help. They now have “But ChatGPT said…” to contradict the actually correct thing that you are trying to teach them.
Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki
#83How are you going to handle this scenario: - Person reads your auto wiki explanation of some part of a codebase. - The explanation is incorrect. - The person, believing your explanation as authoritative, complains to the developers of the codebase. Maybe opens an issue on an open-source project, posts on a discord or the like. - The maintainers now have to deal with this misinformation adding overhead to their worklo…
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 click through to the actual citation to ground them.
Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki
#84Reading these wikis makes me feel we need to invent some visual convention to indicate AI-generated text. Like a particular color or font. This would make it so people don't feel cheated after they realize they just spent several minutes trying to make sense of something churned out by an LLM. (I mean this as a voluntary design enhancement for sites that want to be nice, of course people can always cheat.)
Hi! Appreciate your comment, I personally think AI generated content is the future. The reactions people are having to AI generated content is very similar to the reactions to the printing press whereby anyone could write anything and mass distribute it. I think people also had similar reactions to Google indexing the web. (Note: I'm not discounting existential risk, that is real but another topic for another day.)
With how the typical search engine experience is going these days, is comparing yourself to Google really a good thing?
Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki
#85How are you going to handle this scenario: - Person reads your auto wiki explanation of some part of a codebase. - The explanation is incorrect. - The person, believing your explanation as authoritative, complains to the developers of the codebase. Maybe opens an issue on an open-source project, posts on a discord or the like. - The maintainers now have to deal with this misinformation adding overhead to their worklo…
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?
Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki
#86As 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.
Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki
#87Trying to use https://app.mutable.ai/Issung/GChan
Error: "Encounter an error with retriving your quota".
Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki
#88For a wilder idea of what you can do with GitHub and wikis see https://speedrun.cc No AI, so the wikis need to be hand created, but being able to build tools and UIs right into your GitHub documentation is a powerful concept.
Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki
#89FYI an update from us: We're moving our authentication system to wiki.mutable.ai so you can generate them for private wikis without needing to go through app.mutable.ai.
Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki
#90Reading these wikis makes me feel we need to invent some visual convention to indicate AI-generated text. Like a particular color or font. This would make it so people don't feel cheated after they realize they just spent several minutes trying to make sense of something churned out by an LLM. (I mean this as a voluntary design enhancement for sites that want to be nice, of course people can always cheat.)
Hi! Appreciate your comment, I personally think AI generated content is the future. The reactions people are having to AI generated content is very similar to the reactions to the printing press whereby anyone could write anything and mass distribute it. I think people also had similar reactions to Google indexing the web. (Note: I'm not discounting existential risk, that is real but another topic for another day.)
You may lose some potential audience with this kind of comment, saying AI content is the future is a non-sequitur to an idea about offsetting the very real time-wasting quality issues that it yields for the near future. The printing press analogy might be apt if the Gutenberg bible was full of verses that were modified by the press itself and looked coherent at a glance but with totally different (and sometimes nonsensical) meaning from the original. The Gutenberg press would have still had incredible potential but it would be more than useful to be able to identify book copies that may be affected.