Earlier quoted context omitted.
"let's go the opposite way" Do you have any popular open source projects? Or are you just an Internet gremlin?
[flagged]
[deleted]
Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
131–140 of 611 posts
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#132Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#133This is a neat post and I'm glad it got written and this is a little bit off-topic but:
Hey, 'logicprog, your writing is fine!
Use LLMs to critique your writing, check its structure, vet your choice of topic sentences, check flow from graf to graf and section to section, look for passive voice and overused words. LLMs are fantastic for that. But don't use a single word an LLM suggests in your actual writing. If it suggests something really fucking good, too bad, those words are disqualified. It's an easy red line to adhere to, easier than it sounds, and it'll keep your writing human.
(You ended up somewhere around here anyways, but that was after you posted something with LLM-written language because you weren't confident enough in your own writing. The things you do "worse" than an LLM are what make you you; be protective of them!)
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Claude is actually good enough to commit to rsync, of course I'm going to look at that and think "it's good enough for my side project too." And (benefit to companies aside) that is info it is useful to know, if it's true.
Yeah, this is why it's obnoxious and this is why scummy marketers do it. If you don't aggressively turn it off, they leech an implicit endorsement out of you. - Sent from my iPhone
Alto hug the iphone sigoff is hilaripus sonce fhe meyboard is so bad it always comes across asa an ask doe forgivebeds
— Sent from my iPhone
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#135Unfortunately for the people mad about this, I predict the only thing they will accomplish by pressuring the rsync maintainers, is to discourage everyone else from responsibly disclosing their use of AI. You’re just going to make people disable Claude attribution on their commits to avoid drama.
> You’re just going to make people disable Claude attribution on their commits to avoid drama. People should be doing this regardless of drama. No reason to provide free advertising for trillion dollar corporations. Generated-by trailers are only relevant when contributing to third party projects, in that case disclosure is polite.
The value of the Claude attribution is that you can tell at a glance who used AI.
I don't care about the advertising angle. We all know Claude by now. I want some indicator that AI was used.
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
I link to it multiple times in TFA and quote the specific thing I'm talking about here in there to explain that possible confounder. I think I've done more than the work I'm obligated to it.do to make all of the relevant information available to you. You are just refusing to use
I am not finding these links in TFA, I see a link to an issue #929 which (as mentioned in TFA) has over 350 replies, and and opinionated summary of what transpired, including some detailed description of specific posts there. However I did not find the maintainers response. Of interest is this post here: https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/issues/929#issuecommen... which echos the same concern which was raised up t…
> EDIT: Found it! it is in the (untitled) discussion section (after the results).
I also paraphrase Tridge himself explicitly saying that this is why commits/releases have increased:
> Essentially, this isn't a "Claude" problem, it's a "more security work" problem, something that Tridge himself confirmed in his response, describing how a flood of AI-generated CVE reports forced rapid, extensive changes to rsync's attack surface.
> The page design changes backgrounds after the results sections, which kind of conveys to the user that they have reached the end of what was is important and can just skim over the rest (usually pages have a radical change in typography like these when you’ve reached the comment section), however this is what is analogous to a discussion in a typical paper, and is arguably the most important part. I had simply assumed that you just left it at the result and skipped the discussion as a stylistic choice.
Good point, I assumed everyone would read till the end, that's on me. I'll give it a heading.
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#137Unfortunately for the people mad about this, I predict the only thing they will accomplish by pressuring the rsync maintainers, is to discourage everyone else from responsibly disclosing their use of AI. You’re just going to make people disable Claude attribution on their commits to avoid drama.
I mean, I don't think commits are the place for tool attributions. I want to know what the change was, I'm not really interested in your tool selection (put that in the PR if it's relevant). It'd be just as irrelevant to see "written on my macbook in neovim"
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#138Pretty cool site!
> v3.4.3 has been out long enough that its rate (5.00) is already comparable to historical releases. The "wait and see" argument is an appeal to an unknowable future that shifts the burden of proof away from the critics. If more bugs surface, they will enter the distribution like every other release. There is no reason to expect a regime break.
I mean, as someone who uses LLMs, it might be a good idea to consider how one might limit the amount of bugs that will appear in the future at least a little bit: parallel iterative code review loops would probably be the easiest and most applicable to LLMs, though I guess test coverage and other code analysis tools help too.
Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#139Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?
#140> The analysis uses a single metric: bugs per 10 commits (bugs/10c). Bugs per commit as a metric papers over severity, both in terms of security severity as well as the effect on the user. A mislabeled button has the same weight as the entire app crashing in this framework.
I've now resolved this. The new version, which should be live on GH Pages soon, uses — what I think is — a pretty good methodology for assigning severity to each bug, normalizes it to 0.0-1.0, sums that, and treats that as the total severity weighted bugs, then does the analysis based on that. It did not change the analysis in any material way.