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

Changing how we develop Ladybird

ladybird.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 602 posts

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#311

Post by shinryuu »

mistersquid wrote: post #303
shinryuu wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100x is achieving something in two days, what it took an entire year before. I strongly doubt that is happening for an individual.

> 100x is achieving something in two days, what it took an entire year before. Reduce your scale: "100x achieves in 1 hour what used to take 1 week." One year of work could require levels of complexity and human judgement that can't be accelerated past a certain point. 1 week of work can be reduced to an hour and some change.

That requires that you not only one-shot the thing. You will also not have the time to verify the solution yourself in that time period.

Besides 1h what used to to take 1 week is basically 40x given a workweek is 40h.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#312

Post by ATMLOTTOBEER »

asdaqopqkq wrote: post #58
mabedan wrote: post #35

I can understand where they come from. If most of the pull-requests were AI-coded, well, the maintainers are equally capable of prompting Claude Code themselves. I think the whole game of software engineering, open source or not, has completely changed. A lump of code doesn't mean or imply the same thing as it did 2 years ago.

yeah but they could get free token usage from the community

When I contribute to OSS with AI I’m essentially engaging in a donation matching scheme where Anthropic matches 1 to 20 the dollar value invested (usually I can get ~2k of value per month on the $100 plan) in the open source project.

So any project that doesn’t accept AI PRs is really missing out on significant investment

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#313

Post by mikkelam »

bakugo wrote: post #287
simonw wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's entirely consistent with what they said here: > Whether code was typed by hand is beside the point. What matters is who is responsible for it once it enters the browser. Ladybird is becoming a browser for real users. The people introducing changes to it must be the people who decide those changes belong in the project, and who will answer for the consequences.

That's the philosophical argument. In practice, though, the effect of large unreviewed AI commits on the project and its users is likely to be the same regardless of whether those commits were prompted by a core developer or an outside contributor.

My own experience is far from this. Steering the AI, early and while developing a change, matters sigificantly.

Therefore a maintainer is more likely to steer the AI in a direction that is aligned with the codebase.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#314

Post by [deleted] »

afdbcreid wrote: post #143
VortexLain wrote: post #114

Ladybird going source-available is quite unfortunate, seems like Gecko is the only production-ready independent browser engine we're left with. They may, at this point, go ahead and remove "get involved" block from their website https://ladybird.org/ , since it's not possible to contribute anymore.

That's not source-available, that's still open-source. Quoting Wikipedia: > Source-available software is software released through a source code distribution model that includes arrangements where the source can be viewed, and in some cases modified, but without necessarily meeting the criteria to be called open-source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software > Open-source software (OSS) is computer s…

[deleted]

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#315

Post by leoc »

Hendrikto wrote: post #125
leoc wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Opensource doesn't mean open to contributions. That's not entirely true. It's certainly the case that Ladybird is still under an open-source license , but the whole idea of the "Open Source" label was to move the emphasis away from having a free license to actually being open to patches in practice.

Not even the most extreme FOSS zealots (RMS, FSF, …) ever claimed that taking public contributions was ever a part of that.

But that's a bit backwards. RMS would emphatically agree that Free Software doesn't mean being open to contributions; if you asked him about either "FOSS" or "Open Source" he'd probably command you to wash your mouth out with soap. It's the other side of the fighting FOSS family which evangelised for Linux-like development (see the thread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48410503 ).

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#316

Post by txdv »

ivanjermakov wrote: post #177

The core problem is that we don't have a PR respect system. 10kLOC from an unfamiliar person with empty GitHub is much different from a pal regularly contributing that you personally know. Integrating some kind of proof-of-stake system might be a way forward for open source. Nobody wants to shuffle through a pile of low-quality PRs written by LLM.

mitchell hashimoto https://github.com/mitchellh/vouch implemented this idea

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#317

Post by throwaway7356 »

net01 wrote: post #101

I don't like this, but I understand it. I've contributed to the LB project several times, and I have made friends IRL with people who have also contributed to the project. ( we are now friends at uni ) It feels like a stepback because instead of 30-45 contributors every month, you have 15... i feel like there should be a way to trust a PR ID verification or in-person verification at FOSDEM/DEFCON/Chaos Communication…

> i feel like there should be a way to trust a PR ID verification or in-person verification at FOSDEM/DEFCON/Chaos Communication Congress,UNI's, for example.

They probably could do that as part of the hiring process.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#318

Post by kibwen »

Kudos wrote: post #304
shinryuu wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100x is achieving something in two days, what it took an entire year before. I strongly doubt that is happening for an individual.

The baseline engineer in that case must really be something incompetent.

Ironic. The best way to turn 1x engineers into 100x engineers is to reduce the median skill level by 100x.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#319

Post by singpolyma3 »

patates wrote: post #131

When AI first happened, I was afraid I was going to eventually lose my job. And while I've been lucky since, many did, and that hurt a lot. When people are losing something to automation, regardless of the economics of the situation, you cheer for the humans, or at least hope that society keeps being fair to those who are most affected. Now I see communities being affected. When you kill PRs, you not only kill the co…

> When people are losing something to automation, regardless of the economics of the situation, you cheer for the humans

As in cheer for the humans because they've been liberated from the drudgery they have lost?

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#320

Post by kibwen »

torben-friis wrote: post #251
patates wrote: post #131

When AI first happened, I was afraid I was going to eventually lose my job. And while I've been lucky since, many did, and that hurt a lot. When people are losing something to automation, regardless of the economics of the situation, you cheer for the humans, or at least hope that society keeps being fair to those who are most affected. Now I see communities being affected. When you kill PRs, you not only kill the co…

>But all now seems like a transition phase. Transition to f-ing what though? It feels like being in the middle of a tornado. But I think it helps to turn off screens, sit in a desk, and calmly remember first principles and consider them slowly. Quoting obama, "reality has a way of catching up with you". I see a lot of talk, but iOS is not delivering a decade of features and fixes on each yearly release. Literally no…

> But all this smoke will eventually clear.

I wish I could be so optimistic. Our lives are ruled by distorted, irrational, inefficient, failed markets, and the markets can remain distorted, irrational, inefficient, and failed for longer than we as individuals can remain solvent. "In the long term the market is a weighing machine", for term lengths that include the heat death of the universe.

Post reply on HN