Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki
41–50 of 136 posts
Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki
#42Then when I clicked again it loaded.
Then I clicked the one for D3 and it said the same. And I clicked it again and it still said the same.
Is this some kind of weird manifestation of a DB conn error or something?
Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki
#43When I click the link https://wiki.mutable.ai/bitcoin/bitcoin from your post it says that the wiki doesn’t exist yet Then when I clicked again it loaded. Then I clicked the one for D3 and it said the same. And I clicked it again and it still said the same. Is this some kind of weird manifestation of a DB conn error or something?
Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki
#44When I click the link https://wiki.mutable.ai/bitcoin/bitcoin from your post it says that the wiki doesn’t exist yet Then when I clicked again it loaded. Then I clicked the one for D3 and it said the same. And I clicked it again and it still said the same. Is this some kind of weird manifestation of a DB conn error or something?
Try reloading, we identified the issue and are pushing out the fix now (in code review, almost done!)
Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki
#45Love the idea! I will try it on my own repo! As an aside, I've been thinking of creating an auto-wiki for game lore based on what AI npcs say, i.e. convert their hallucinations into canon. How was your experience of taking unstructured text (though code is more structured) and making it into wikis? How difficult is to have it do incremental updates vs re-create it all?
Thank you for the praise. Sounds cool re your idea, is there something you want to try it on that we can help you with? We cache much of the work so incremental updates are quite easy, the asymptotic work is low.
Now, most of the conversations are between the AIs and the hallucinate stuff based on the very small background lore I gave as a prompt. I've been thinking of having a background process that takes all of these conversations through many different games and start building a coherent game lore wiki, automatically.
Basically, letting these interactions build the game lore.
It is quite different from using a repo because code is 1) relatively structured, 2) coherent, 3) and refers to a single instance. In contrast, the corpus of conversations may have conflicting narratives of the game lore which need to be reconciled and there is close to no structure!
Anyway, happy to chat if you think this is an interesting topic for auto-wikis.
Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki
#46As 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
The key components of React's implementation include:
The reconciler, implemented in …/react-reconciler, which contains the ReactFiberReconciler class and algorithms for recursively diffing virtual DOM trees and scheduling rendering work. The beginWork and completeWork phases drive the reconciliation process.
But the reconciler seems to be an experimental, not core, recent package, not a key one.Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for this feedback. We actually have an Auto Wiki v2 in the works which is even higher quality, would be interesting to see how it changes when that comes out.
Can you talk a little bit about the crawler or what information are you feeding the agent about the repostory? My main concern is that this is just hallucinating the documentation and that with the more well known repos like React it can pull the data from training data like blogs etc. I think the concept is really great would just like to understand especially for enterprise use cases.
Re: Show HN: Auto Wiki – Turn your codebase into a Wiki
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for this feedback. We actually have an Auto Wiki v2 in the works which is even higher quality, would be interesting to see how it changes when that comes out.
I would expect something like this to output only factually correct documentation since it would be used as reference; but it sounds like even under the upcoming v2 that's not the case?