Anyone else feel like we're cresting the LLM coding hype curve?
Like a recognition that there's value there, but we're passing the frothing-at-the-mouth stage of replacing all software engineers?
We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source
11–20 of 161 posts
Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source
#12I wouldn't call it "vibe coded slop" the models are getting way better and I can work with my engineers a lot faster. I am the founder and a product person so it helps in reducing the number of needed engineers at my business. We are currently doing $2.5M ARR and the engineers aren't complaining, in fact it is the opposite, they are actually more productive. We still prioritize architecture planning, testing and havi…
> the engineers aren't complaining, in fact it is the opposite, they are actually more productive. More productive isn't the opposite of complaining.
I don't hear any either way.
Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source
#13Nice jewish word mostly meant to mock. Why would I care what a plugin that I don't even see in use has to say to my face (since I had to read this with all the interpretation potential and receptiveness available). The same kind of inserted judgment that lingers similar to "Yes, I will judge you if you use AI".
Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source
#14I wouldn't call it "vibe coded slop" the models are getting way better and I can work with my engineers a lot faster. I am the founder and a product person so it helps in reducing the number of needed engineers at my business. We are currently doing $2.5M ARR and the engineers aren't complaining, in fact it is the opposite, they are actually more productive. We still prioritize architecture planning, testing and havi…
> so it helps in reducing the number of needed engineers at my business > the engineers aren't complaining You're missing a piece of the puzzle here, Mr business person.
I mean our MRR and ARR is growing so we must be doing something right.
Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source
#15Shouldn't there be guidelines for open source projects where it is clearly stipulated that code submitted for review must follow the project's code format and conventions?
This is the thought that I always have whenever I see the mention of coding standards. Not only should there be standards they should be enforced by tooling.
Now that being said a person should feel free to do what they want with their code. It’s somewhat tough to justify the work of setting up infrastructure to do that on small projects, but AI PRs aren’t likely a big issue fit small projects.
Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source
#16The title doesn't make justice to the content.
I really liked the paragraph about LLMs being "alien intelligence"
> Many engineers I know fall into 2 camps, either the camp that find the new class of LLMs intelligent, groundbreaking and shockingly good. In the other camp are engineers that think of all LLM generated content as “the emperor’s new clothes”, the code they generate is “naked”, fundamentally flawed and poison.
I like to think of the new systems as neither. I like to think about the new class of intelligence as “Alien Intelligence”. It is both shockingly good and shockingly terrible at the exact same time.
Framing LLMs as “Super competent interns” or some other type of human analogy is incorrect. These systems are aliens and the sooner we accept this the sooner we will be able to navigate the complexity that injecting alien intelligence into our engineering process leads to.
Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the engineers aren't complaining, in fact it is the opposite, they are actually more productive. More productive isn't the opposite of complaining.
I don't hear any either way.
If an engineer complains in the woods and nobody is around to hear them, did they even complain at all?
Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source
#18I wouldn't call it "vibe coded slop" the models are getting way better and I can work with my engineers a lot faster. I am the founder and a product person so it helps in reducing the number of needed engineers at my business. We are currently doing $2.5M ARR and the engineers aren't complaining, in fact it is the opposite, they are actually more productive. We still prioritize architecture planning, testing and havi…
> reducing the number of needed engineers at my business > code is getting less and less important in our team > the engineers aren't complaining lays off engineers for ai trained off of other engineer's code and says code is less important and engineers aren't complaining.
Um, yes?
They can focus on other things that are more impactful in the business rather than just slinging code all day, they can actually look at design and the product!
Maximum headcount for engineers is around 7, no more than that now. I used to have 20, but with AI we don't need that many for our size.
Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source
#19> “I am closing this but this is interesting, head over to our forum/issues to discuss”
I really like the way Discourse uses "levels" to slowly open up features as new people interact with the community, and I wonder if GitHub could build in a way of allowing people to only be able to open PRs after a certain amount of interaction, too (for example, you can only raise a large PR if you have spent enough time raising small PRs).
This could of course be abused and/or lead to unintended restrictions (e.g. a small change in lots of places), but that's also true of Discourse and it seems to work pretty well regardless.
Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source
#20Nice jewish word mostly meant to mock. Why would I care what a plugin that I don't even see in use has to say to my face (since I had to read this with all the interpretation potential and receptiveness available). The same kind of inserted judgment that lingers similar to "Yes, I will judge you if you use AI".
There’s nothing wrong with judgment. Judging someone’s character based on whether they use generative “AI” is a valid practice. You may not like being judged, but that’s another matter entirely.