Is this an analysis made by/with Claude?
Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
11–20 of 611 posts
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#12so the answer is: no. actaully less bugs. thanks
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#13Claude is just a tool ? The developers who merged that code and didn't properly test increased the bugs.
If something's a bad tool that misleads people into doing bad work, it would be good to know that.
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#14[stub for offtopicness] [see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48416020 for how all this happened in the first place]
> A simple distributional analysis of every rsync release with bug data. No model. No assumptions. Just placement. If you want me to read your analysis, you are going to have to make it not read like Claude wrote it. What does "placement" even mean here?
"Placement" as in where the Claude-driven releases exist within the existing distribution of bugs per 100 commits. If they're not OOD, then nothing is unusual.
Also, it wasn't written by Claude FWIW, GLM 5.1.
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#15[stub for offtopicness] [see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48416020 for how all this happened in the first place]
Some notes on this: - I used GLM 5.1 to help with the coding and math for this. - However, I explicitly dictated where the data should be pulled from (GitHub, Bugzilla, mailing list), how it should be tagged and grouped, and what data to look at (e.g. bugs instead of regressions) - Additionally, I consulted with my wife, who has a master's degree in statistics from Penn State University for what sort of statistical m…
I really struggle to believe you wrote text like:
> A simple distributional analysis of every rsync release with bug data. No model. No assumptions. Just placement.
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#16[deleted]
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#17> But the critics' accusation is also blunt: "Claude is making things worse." A blunt instrument is the fairest response.
So the criticism was bad, and that somehow makes it ok to use a bad metric?
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#18[stub for offtopicness] [see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48416020 for how all this happened in the first place]
This article reeks of LLM "assistance" at the very least. Please, why can't people write stuff by hand themselves any more? It's a good analysis but how can I trust it without reviewing everything myself?!
I mean, you can literally clone my repo, run the Python that rebuilds the database and does the whole data analysis and to end from scratch, and verify that the numbers are accurate. I made the code for this analysis public for that exact reason. This wasn't just an LLM running unsupervised in a loop. I came up with the methodologies and metrics and data scraping strategies precisely myself, iterated on it to try to be as honest with what the data could show as possible.
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#19[stub for offtopicness] [see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48416020 for how all this happened in the first place]
[dead]
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#20> But the critics' accusation is also blunt: "Claude is making things worse." A blunt instrument is the fairest response. So the criticism was bad, and that somehow makes it ok to use a bad metric?
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if the criticism is referring to a broad set of metrics like bugs per release and number of commits that were made by Claude, then it's correct to look at precisely those things because that's what the claim is about.