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

We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

samsaffron.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 161 posts

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#21

Post by HPsquared »

pards wrote: post #3
colesantiago wrote: post #2

I 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…

> code is getting less and less important in our team, so we don't need many engineers. That's a bit reductive. Programmers write code; engineers build systems. I'd argue that you still need engineers for architecture, system design, protocol design, API design, tech stack evaluation & selection, rollout strategies, etc, and most of this has to be unambiguously documented in a format LLMs can understand. While I agre…

Maybe the code itself is less important now, relative to the specification.

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#22

Post by portaouflop »

Bengalilol wrote: post #7

Shouldn'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?

In a perfect world people would read and understand contribution guidelines before opening a PR or issue.

Alas…

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#23

Post by hansmayer »

colesantiago wrote: post #2

I 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…

> and a product person

Tells me all I need to know about your ability for sound judgement on technical topics right there.

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#24

Post by alwa »

softwaredoug wrote: post #11

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?

It feels that way to me, too—starting to feel closer to maturity. Like Mr. Saffron here, saying “go ham with the AI for prototyping, just communicate that as a demo/branch/video instead of a PR.”

It feels like people and projects are moving from a pure “get that slop out of here” attitude toward more nuance, more confidence articulating how to integrate the valuable stuff while excluding the lazy stuff.

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#25

Post by theultdev »

colesantiago wrote: post #18
theultdev wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yeah I'm sure they aren't complaining because you'll just lay them off like the others.

I don't see how you could think 7 engineers would love the workload of 20 engineers, extra tooling or not.

Have fun with the tech debt in a few years.

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#26

Post by andai »

darkwater wrote: post #16

The 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 po…

Some movements expected alien intelligence to arrive in the early 2020s. They might have been on the mark after all ;)

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#27

Post by didericis »

pards wrote: post #3
colesantiago wrote: post #2

I 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…

> code is getting less and less important in our team, so we don't need many engineers. That's a bit reductive. Programmers write code; engineers build systems. I'd argue that you still need engineers for architecture, system design, protocol design, API design, tech stack evaluation & selection, rollout strategies, etc, and most of this has to be unambiguously documented in a format LLMs can understand. While I agre…

> we can generate and regenerate code from specs

We can (unreliably) write more code in natural english now. At its core it’s the same thing: detailed instructions telling the computer what it should do.

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#28

Post by mattlondon »

The way we do it is to use AI to review the PR before a human reviewer sees it. Obvious errors, non-consistent patterns, weirdness etc is flagged before it goes any further. "Vibe coded" slop usually gets caught, but "vibe engineered" surgical changes that adhere to common patterns and standards and have tests etc get to be seen by a real live human for their normal review.

It's not rocket science.

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#29

Post by andai »

>That said, there is a trend among many developers of banning AI. Some go so far as to say “AI not welcome here” find another project.

>This feels extremely counterproductive and fundamentally unenforceable to me. Much of the code AI generates is indistinguishable from human code anyway. You can usually tell a prototype that is pretending to be a human PR, but a real PR a human makes with AI assistance can be indistinguishable.

Isn't that exactly the point? Doesn't this achieve exactly what the whole article is arguing for?

A hard "No AI" rule filters out all the slop, and all the actually good stuff (which may or may not have been made with AI) makes it in.

When the AI assisted code is indistinguishable from human code, that's mission accomplished, yeah?

Although I can see two counterarguments. First, it might just be Covert Slop. Slop that goes under the radar.

And second, there might be a lot of baby thrown out with that bathwater. Stuff that was made in conjunction with AI, contains a lot of "obviously AI", but a human did indeed put in the work to review it.

I guess the problem is there's no way of knowing that? Is there a Proof of Work for code review? (And a proof of competence, to boot?)

Post reply on HN