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

141–150 of 611 posts

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#141

Post by MostlyStable »

scsh wrote: post #36

> 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 real…

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. This is more evidence, and of greater rigor, than was used to make the assertions. That's good enough for me. If someone wants to actually do the work to support the original claims with better evidence, great. I'd love to see it. Until then, I'm going to not worry about this issue.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#142

Post by hnav »

overgard wrote: post #137
thorum wrote: post #80

Unfortunately 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"

Depends on what the claude attribution actually means. A lot of people will just get the thing building and then ship. To me that attribution is generally a red flag.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#143

Post by matheusmoreira »

Aurornis wrote: post #135
matheusmoreira wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

And why do you want to know that? So you can call our projects slop? Ostracize us?

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#144

Post by ex-aws-dude »

dang wrote: post #86
ex-aws-dude wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the original unfounded claim has 400+ comments because its perfect HN ragebait The author provides evidence to the contrary and the HNers won't even engage with it instead just talking about the writing of the article in classic HN bikeshedding fashion. How about after that we talk about the formatting of the website and the colors? This site is really going down hill Where is the accountability for your own opini…

Comments like this do more of what they complain about, only with an extra layer of judgment. It would be preferable if someone would seed a better discussion by engaging with the article's claims/observations.

Why did you the admin allow such ragebait to stay on the front page then?

Is that the kind of low effort posts we want around here? Just a link to a github comment of a screenshot?

You're complicit here in fueling the harassment of an open source project

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#145

Post by logicprog »

tptacek wrote: post #133

This 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 su…

Thank you!

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#146

Post by codygman »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #143
Aurornis wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And why do you want to know that? So you can call our projects slop? Ostracize us?

So that the AI model that generated code can get proper credit and we'll know to use (or not use it) next time.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#148

Post by grey-area »

skeledrew wrote: post #124
grey-area wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Style is also part of the content. Word choice, grammar, register, and tone all affect meaning and communication of that meaning. The medium is part of the message. So your statement betrays a significant misunderstanding - there is no neat clean divide between style and content. Also, LLMs often generate text that is plausible, but wrong, in ways big and small.

Well, I got the meaning in the article fine, and have no complaints. > Also, LLMs often generate text that is plausible, but wrong, in ways big and small. So do humans. Always have, always will.

Humans acting with intention do it a lot less. The difference is that LLMs don’t act with intention.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#149

Post by Aurornis »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #143
Aurornis wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And why do you want to know that? So you can call our projects slop? Ostracize us?

You don't need an AI attribution tag to recognize slop. In my experience reviewing PRs, the slop-pushers are most aggressive about stripping the AI attribution anyway. It's the normal devs who use a little bit of AI who leave it in.

The tag is helpful because AI authorship is different than the human authorship. When you work with a project or team for long enough you start to trust certain people and their intuition, but when they start submitting AI-produced code you have to reset and review it like AI code.

I use these tools a lot, too. But I want to know where the code came from so I can review it accordingly. The source matters.

> Ostracize us?

I don't know why you're so defensive. If AI wrote the code just be honest about it.

If you outsourced the code writing to some guy named Bob on Fiverr, I'd want to know that too.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#150

Post by dang »

ex-aws-dude wrote: post #144
dang wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comments like this do more of what they complain about, only with an extra layer of judgment. It would be preferable if someone would seed a better discussion by engaging with the article's claims/observations.

Why did you the admin allow such ragebait to stay on the front page then? Is that the kind of low effort posts we want around here? Just a link to a github comment of a screenshot? You're complicit here in fueling the harassment of an open source project

I don't have enough background info to understand what you're referring to here.

Even if you're right, though, you shouldn't be posting comments that break the site guidelines.

Post reply on HN