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

381–390 of 602 posts

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#381

Post by throawayonthe »

cmiles74 wrote: post #263
zkry wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can imagine in these cases the LLM is telling the "contributor" how smart they are and how much the project is loosing out, maybe saying something like: "It's not about maintaining project boundaries, it’s not about ensuring code quality; it’s a gatekeeping mechanism designed by traditionalists who feel threatened by forward-thinking creators like you who truly master the efficiency of AI."

I wouldn’t be surprised to find out this is part of their RHLF training, the attitude is so prevalent in these models.

really? in the way the parent comment describes? (genuine) i suppose i've never encountered a context where it would be relevant for an LLM to output that, interesting

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#382

Post by nunez »

gpvos wrote: post #324
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…

Side question: what's wrong with Sonos playing a song? Are they generating AI music now?

I think they meant Suno.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#383

Post by throawayonthe »

rurban wrote: post #333
losvedir wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting to see this perspective in the wild. In the age of AI I wonder what "massive value" your PR is bringing to the maintainer. $1 worth of tokens?

[flagged]

not to throw this word around, but,

> Only stoneagers would say that they are better than a good AI.

projection? lack of confidence in your own abilities? why make such a sweeping statement

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#384

Post by grepex »

thegrim33 wrote: post #373
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…

"I was afraid" .. "hurt a lot" .. "I hope that" .. "that feels" .. "I'm conflicted" .. "I'm confused" .. "I'm afraid" .. "human touch" .. "I liked" .. "I feel so stupid". Maybe, just maybe, you're not thinking rationally/logically about the situation and instead are mostly operating on emotion and feelings?

The irony is that it is sometimes irrational/illogical to only consider rationality and logic.

Have you ever had an experience where, by all calculations, you should be happy with the outcome but for whatever reason you're not?

In some ways, that is the state of the internet today. Everything is optimized based on analytics, but so many of use are unhappy with how things are.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#385

Post by simbosambo »

throawayonthe wrote: post #383
rurban wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

not to throw this word around, but, > Only stoneagers would say that they are better than a good AI. projection? lack of confidence in your own abilities? why make such a sweeping statement

[dead]

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#386

Post by freeopinion »

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.

Ignoring the obvious math problem here, I think the broader scope is important. Some of the point from preceding comments is that overall longterm output is not changing. So if somebody is oneshotting a week of work in an hour, but has the same annual output... where are you losing all the normal productivity that should have happened the rest of the week/year?

If one week of work can be reduced to an hour, then you should be able to complete a year's worth of work in 50 hours. If you break that into two 25-hour weeks (because a 40x dev earns the right to loaf?), what is that dev doing for the other 50 weeks in the year? What is making them so incredibly unproductive 50 out of 52 weeks in a year?

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#387

Post by idbnstra »

utopiah wrote: post #358

Goodhart's law, again. I feel like 1/10 comment I make on HN are about this. So merged PR were until LLMs a good proxy for the ability to code and contribute to a software project. Consequently they were used to estimate if a candidate was potentially good for a position. Merged PR on popular project were thus precious credentials one could "trade" for potential work. Since then the desire to provide PR changed from…

what, in your opinion, are the new proxies?

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#388

Post by nunez »

jatora wrote: post #332
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…

> Also: I liked a song and it was sonos. I unliked it after discovering. I feel so stupid, so often. This is asinine. Keep depriving yourself of things you enjoy I guess?

Every like to an AI-generated work is (literally!) one more data point in support of record labels dropping human artists for AI artists that will do what they want, perform where they want, and give all of their profits back to the label.

Movie studios are "signing" AI artists from AI studios for massive dollars; this is happening.

Maybe you don't care, but music is beautiful and difficult, and I really enjoy hearing works from people that have a passion for it.

You don't have to worry, though; most people are in your school of thought. "Who cares? It's good." Short-term thinking is best-term thinking.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#389

Post by cestith »

boneskull wrote: post #93

I don’t understand how you’re supposed to cultivate new maintainers if you shut down contribution. Is this a sponsored project where maintainers are just hired?

Encourage forks and wait for actual experienced, committed maintainers of the fork to emerge I suppose is the way. In essence the maintainers are saying the path to trusted contributor and then to maintainer via outside unsolicited pull requests is less useful because the signals of a committed person in that path have become less useful.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#390

Post by KolmogorovComp »

ivanjermakov wrote: post #170

> Ladybird remains open source. The source code will continue to be publicly available under an open source license. We usually call open source software without open collaboration source available software. This is terrible news, defeating core beliefs people had in Ladybird. Not an open browser I wished for.

> We usually call open source software without open collaboration source available software.

Not at all. You are of today’s lucky 10,000 [0]. Open source refers to OSI-compliant licenses, not open to contributions. SQLite is open source but not open to contributions.

[0] https://xkcd.com/1053/

Post reply on HN