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

I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits

maxemitchell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 291 posts

Re: I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits

#91

Post by latexr »

brador wrote: post #88

Many of you are failing to conprehend the potential scale of AI generated codebases. Take note - there is no limit. Every feature you or the AI can prompt can be generated. Imagine if you were immortal and given unlimited storage. Imagine what you could create. That’s a prompt away. Even now you’re still restricting your thinking to the old ways.

You’re sounding like a religious zealot recruiting for a cult.

No, it is not possible to prompt every feature, and I suspect people who believe LLMs can accurately program anything in any language are frankly not solving any truly novel or interesting problems, because if they were they’d see the obvious cracks.

Re: I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits

#92

Post by [deleted] »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #18

I asked this in the other thread (no response, but I was a bit late) How does anyone using AI like this have confidence that they aren't unintentionally plagiarizing code and violating the terms of whatever license it was released under? For random personal projects I don't see it mattering that much. But if a large corp is releasing code like this, one would hope they've done some due diligence that they have to jus…

[deleted]

Re: I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits

#93

Post by fragmede »

someothherguyy wrote: post #79
tptacek wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, what's happening here is we're talking past each other. An agent lints and compiles code . The LLM is stochastic and unreliable. The agent is ~200 lines of Python code that checks the exit code of the compiler and relays it back to the LLM. You can easily fool an LLM. You can't fool the compiler. I didn't say anything about whether code needs to be reviewed line-by-line by humans. I review LLM code line-by-line.…

Linting isn't verification of correctness, and yes, you can fool the compiler, linters, etc. Work with some human interns, they are great at it. Agents will do crazy things to get around linting errors, including removing functionality.

have you no tests?

Re: I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits

#94

Post by ZeroTalent »

ZephyrBlu wrote: post #85
dcre wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t like to accuse, and the article is fine overall, but this stinks: “This transparency transforms git history from a record of changes into a record of intent, creating a new form of documentation that bridges human reasoning and machine implementation.”

Also: " This OAuth library represents something larger than a technical milestone—it's evidence of a new creative dynamic emerging " Em-dash baby.

I have used Em-dashes in many of my comments for years. It's just a result of reading books, where Em-dashes happen a lot.

Re: I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits

#95

Post by saagarjha »

mschild wrote: post #61
gizmo686 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My work has involved a project that is almost entirely generated code for over a decade. Not AI generated, the actual work of the project is in creating the code generator. One of the things we learned very quickly was that having generated source code in the same repository as actual source code was not sustainable. The nature of reviewing changes is just too different between them. Another thing we learned very qui…

> One of the things we learned very quickly was that having generated source code in the same repository as actual source code was not sustainable. Keeping a repository with the prompts, or other commands separate is fine, but not committing the generated code at all I find questionable at best.

I feel like using a compiler is in a sense a code generator where you don't commit the actual output

Re: I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits

#96

Post by saagarjha »

gizmo686 wrote: post #59
SrslyJosh wrote: post #5

> Reading through these commits sparked an idea: what if we treated prompts as the actual source code? Imagine version control systems where you commit the prompts used to generate features rather than the resulting implementation. Please god, no, never do this. For one thing, why would you not commit the generated source code when storage is essentially free? That seems insane for multiple reasons. > When models ine…

My work has involved a project that is almost entirely generated code for over a decade. Not AI generated, the actual work of the project is in creating the code generator. One of the things we learned very quickly was that having generated source code in the same repository as actual source code was not sustainable. The nature of reviewing changes is just too different between them. Another thing we learned very qui…

I think the biggest difference here is that your code generator is probably deterministic and you likely are able to debug the results it produces rather than treating it like a black box.

Re: I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits

#97

Post by saagarjha »

never_inline wrote: post #75
SrslyJosh wrote: post #5

> Reading through these commits sparked an idea: what if we treated prompts as the actual source code? Imagine version control systems where you commit the prompts used to generate features rather than the resulting implementation. Please god, no, never do this. For one thing, why would you not commit the generated source code when storage is essentially free? That seems insane for multiple reasons. > When models ine…

Apart from obvious non-reproducibility, the other problem is lack of navigable structure. I can't command+click or "show usages" or "show definition" any more.

Just ask the AI for those obviously

Re: I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits

#98

Post by saagarjha »

tptacek wrote: post #58
kiitos wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What on earth are you talking about?? If the LLM hallucinates, then the code it produces is wrong. That wrong code isn't obviously or programmatically determinable as wrong, the agent has no way to figure out that it's wrong, it's not as if the LLM produces at the same time tests that identify that hallucinated code as being wrong. The only way that this wrong code can be identified as wrong is by the human user "loo…

No, what's happening here is we're talking past each other. An agent lints and compiles code . The LLM is stochastic and unreliable. The agent is ~200 lines of Python code that checks the exit code of the compiler and relays it back to the LLM. You can easily fool an LLM. You can't fool the compiler. I didn't say anything about whether code needs to be reviewed line-by-line by humans. I review LLM code line-by-line.…

My guy didn't you spend like half your life in the field where your job was to sift through code that compiled but nonetheless had bugs that you tried to exploit? How can you possibly have this belief about AI generated code?

Re: I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits

#99

Post by mschild »

saagarjha wrote: post #95
mschild wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One of the things we learned very quickly was that having generated source code in the same repository as actual source code was not sustainable. Keeping a repository with the prompts, or other commands separate is fine, but not committing the generated code at all I find questionable at best.

I feel like using a compiler is in a sense a code generator where you don't commit the actual output

Sure, but compilers are arguably idempotent. Same code input, same output. LLMs certainly are not.

Re: I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits

#100

Post by saagarjha »

mschild wrote: post #99
saagarjha wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like using a compiler is in a sense a code generator where you don't commit the actual output

Sure, but compilers are arguably idempotent. Same code input, same output. LLMs certainly are not.

Yeah I fully agree (in the other comments here, no less) I just think "I don't commit my code" to be a specific mindset of what code actually is
Post reply on HN