331–340 of 636 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s how I’d want it to be honestly. LLMs are tools and I’d hope we’re going to keep the people using them responsible. Just like any other tools we use.
It’s also pretty damn obvious when LLMs write code. Nobody out here commenting every method in perfect punctuation and grammar.
To err is human. AI is trained on human content. Hence, to err is AI. The day it stops making mistakes will be the beginning of the end. That would mean the existence of a consciousness that has no weakness. Great if it’s on your side. Terrible otherwise.
What effect will this have on their IPO? Can someone take the code and make a clone?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Experience doesn’t leave me with any confidence that the long term memory will be useful for long. Our agentic code bases are a few months old, wait a few years for those comments to get out of date and then see how much it helps.
The great thing about agentic coding is you can define one whose entire role is to read a diff, look in contextual files for comments, and verify whether they’re still accurate. You don’t have to rely on humans doing it. The agent’s entire existence is built around doing this one mundane task that is annoying but super useful.
Yes, lets blow another 5-10k a project/month on tokens to keep the comments up to date. The fact ai still cannot consistently refactor without leaving dead code around even after a self review does not give me confidence in comments…
Comments in code are often a code smell. This is an industry standard for a reason and isnt because of staleness. If u are writing a comment, it means the code is bad or there is irreducible complexity. It is about good design. Comments everywhere are almost always a flag.
Note, language conventions are not the same.
There are now several comments that (incorrectly?) interpret the undercover mode as only hiding internal information. Excerpts from the actual prompt[0]: NEVER include in commit messages or PR descriptions: - The phrase "Claude Code" or any mention that you are an AI - Co-Authored-By lines or any other attribution BAD (never write these): - 1-shotted by claude-opus-4-6 - Generated with Claude Code - Co-Authored-By: C…
I cringe every time I see Claude trying to co-author a commit. The git history is expected to track accountability and ownership, not your Bill of Tools. Should I also co-author my PRs with my linter, intellisense and IDE?
This is also useful for keeping your prompts commit-sized, which in my experience gives much better results than just letting it spin or attempting to one-shot large features.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A whole lot of people find LLM code to be strictly objectionable, for a variety of reasons. We can debate the validity of those reasons, but I think that even if those reasons were all invalid, it would still be unethical to deceive people by a deliberate lie of omission. I don't turn it off, and I don't think other people should either.
Likewise. I don’t mind that people use LLMs to generate text and code. But I want any LLM generated stuff to be clearly marked as such. It seems dishonest and cheap to get Claude to write something and then pretend you did all the work yourself.
What effect will this have on their IPO? Can someone take the code and make a clone?
The frustration regex is funny but honestly the right call. Running an LLM call just to detect "wtf" would be ridiculous.
KAIROS is what actually caught my attention. An always-on background agent that acts without prompting is a completely different thing from what Claude Code is today. The 15 second blocking budget tells me they actually thought through what it feels like to have something running in the background while you work, which is usually the part nobody gets right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Likewise. I don’t mind that people use LLMs to generate text and code. But I want any LLM generated stuff to be clearly marked as such. It seems dishonest and cheap to get Claude to write something and then pretend you did all the work yourself.
So if I use Claude to write the first pass at the code, make a few changes myself, ask it to make an additional change, change another thing myself, then commit it — what exactly do you expect to see then?