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

Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

alexispurslane.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 611 posts

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#31

Post by sanitycheck »

logicprog wrote: post #18
mschuster91 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think the point people are making is that when the text has an "AI smell" (it does), we immediately lose trust in the veracity of any claim being made and feel like continuing to read what is possibly a hallucinated fiction is a complete waste of time.

At this point we're all used to skimming through thousands of AI-generated sentences every working day and constantly thinking "this is likely to be 20% bullshit", it's hard to turn that off even if I try.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#34

Post by logicprog »

gadrev wrote: post #29

Ok. $ apt-cache policy rsync | grep Installed Installed: 3.4.1+ds1-7ubuntu0.2 $ sudo apt-mark hold rsync rsync set on hold.

Did you face any actual bugs or regressions? Or are you doing this just because of the bandwagon that's going around right now? Because until you can actually present an argument for why this release is worse than any of the others, which is precisely the subject of my post, then this is not an argument against my post at all. This is just a self-referential appeal to authority.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#35

Post by logicprog »

sanitycheck wrote: post #31
logicprog wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think the point people are making is that when the text has an "AI smell" (it does), we immediately lose trust in the veracity of any claim being made and feel like continuing to read what is possibly a hallucinated fiction is a complete waste of time. At this point we're all used to skimming through thousands of AI-generated sentences every working day and constantly thinking "this is likely to be 20% bullshit", i…

Do you think it would help if I went through and manually rewrote all of the prose? If it would get people to listen, I'd be totally willing to do it. It's not like I don't like writing. I just was focused on something else when I was making this, namely trying to find a good methodology that isn't insane for this low amount of data.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#36

Post by scsh »

> It does not control for commit complexity, security intensity, or bug severity. It does not distinguish between a one-line typo fix and a CVE patch. It is a blunt instrument. But the critics' accusation is also blunt: "Claude is making things worse." A blunt instrument is the fairest response.

If by fairest you mean to say that this analysis and response is sufficient, then I'm sorry but I have to disagree. We really need to understand if the nature of the bugs are worse from a user's perspective. Even if the rate stayed unchanged, if the result is the perceived quality of the software declined then I would personally consider that worse, especially if I were a project maintainer.

That's not meant to be wholly dismissive either. But in general, I don't think quantitative analysis alone is enough to fully answer this type of question.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#38

Post by imurray »

gadrev wrote: post #29

Ok. $ apt-cache policy rsync | grep Installed Installed: 3.4.1+ds1-7ubuntu0.2 $ sudo apt-mark hold rsync rsync set on hold.

That version has security fixes from the same day as the latest rsync release: https://ubuntu.com/security/notices/USN-8283-1

As usual, Ubuntu backported fixes and didn't upgrade to a new version. Whether or not they also backported regressions in edge cases that afflict the latest rsync, I don't know. Pinning the Ubuntu package may prevent getting further regressions, but is preventing you getting any future such backported security fixes.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#40

Post by bradrn »

logicprog wrote: post #35
sanitycheck wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point people are making is that when the text has an "AI smell" (it does), we immediately lose trust in the veracity of any claim being made and feel like continuing to read what is possibly a hallucinated fiction is a complete waste of time. At this point we're all used to skimming through thousands of AI-generated sentences every working day and constantly thinking "this is likely to be 20% bullshit", i…

Do you think it would help if I went through and manually rewrote all of the prose? If it would get people to listen, I'd be totally willing to do it. It's not like I don't like writing. I just was focused on something else when I was making this, namely trying to find a good methodology that isn't insane for this low amount of data.

Yes, that would help considerably.

(Also, I suggest clearly acknowledging where AI was/wasn’t used. I like CuriosityC’s suggestion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48411968)

Post reply on HN