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

441–450 of 611 posts

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#441

Post by kelnos »

PunchyHamster wrote: post #165
aesthesia wrote: post #95

I don't have a dog in this fight, but a few points that look a little suspicious: - The release with the highest number of attributed bugs is the release _right before_ the first release with Claude-coauthored commits, released in January; is there a chance that unattributed LLM-authored commits made it into this release? - The release attribution methodology is not great, since it will tend to attribute bugs introdu…

Let's start with most outright alarming error - the claude statistics are taken out of whole 2 data points

You can apply that to the outrage too: the people pissed off about this are going off 2 measly data points.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#442

Post by logicprog »

esailija wrote: post #403

What on earth is this. Literally the only thing that matters is are there more bugs after AI written code is allowed into the codebase at all. We all know the answer to that lol. But it's always nice to see "data" can be used to make any conclusion you need.

The data literally shows there aren't, there have been worse releases before. In what way did I manipulate the data?

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#443

Post by kelnos »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #250
toofy wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

for the same reason we want to know who wrote an article, a book, a movie, a song, a play, a journal paper, a painting, and on and on. why do you so many people want to hide who the real author is? we should be very weary of anyone claiming they’re the author of something when they’re absolutely not. if jon wrote a book and i take credit, that’s shady as hell.

Ghostwriting is a thing.

Yes, and I respect ghostwritten work less than I do a work with a disclosed true author. Same would be true of unattributed AI-generated code.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#444

Post by kelnos »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #386
Barrin92 wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why don't you check out my work and decide for yourself? because no person can read every line of code written in software they use, or track every commit made to a project. Integrity and authorship matters. If a person lies or obfuscates the origin of what they produce, an article, software, what have you they're doing it for a reason, otherwise they would be honest. That's not prejudice, that's recognizing deceit.…

> because no person can read every line of code written in software they use, or track every commit made to a project Ask Claude to do it for you. > they're doing it for a reason And you concluded that the reason was they were pretenders who can't hack it. That's your prejudice. Not interested in helping you categorize me, thanks.

That's fine; don't contribute to projects that ask for proper attribution, then, and I suppose everyone will be happy.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#445

Post by logicprog »

jrflowers wrote: post #414
logicprog wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't make any sense, what?

I am not sure what to tell you here, because somebody literally posted the code of a bug that Claude inserted here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48419197 And your response to someone pointing out that sloppy, buggy code that Claude introduced, was to just quote Tridge (which does not in any way refute the fact that you’re looking at a bug that Claude introduced to the code) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id…

I'm saying Claude didn't introduce any more bugs than the human maintainers of rsync had in the past, not that it introduced no bugs at all. That "arbitrary amount" is the historical amount of bugs. That's why I'm confused. You're completely missing my point and talking past me. Yes, Claude may have introduced a bug. That doesn't change that it doesn't really matter.

Additionally, I quoted Tridge in response to a comment about an increase in changes to rsync, not in response to the person pointing at one bug Claude introduced. If you actually looked at the thread, you'd see that. I didn't deny the Claude introduced bug at all.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#446

Post by kelnos »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #163
Aurornis wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not interesting in joining into some argument you're having with someone on lobste.rs

You're not supposed to join. You said you didn't know why I was defensive. I showed you those posts as evidence of the stigma attached to LLMs and their usage. Now you know why.

Maybe you should step back and see if there's a reason why there's a stigma, instead of stubbornly insisting that there's nothing different between submitting work that you wrote yourself, vs. work done by an LLM.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#447

Post by kelnos »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #374
Ronsenshi wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't think calling a PR written by AI is the same thing as using a "tool". If code is largely generated by AI means that AI was an author and not you with some tool.

At what point does it cease to be AI generated and become my own work? If LLM generates some code but I edit it, does it become my own work? How much editing must be done? How large is "largely" ? Exactly how many bits of information must come from my fingers tapping the keyboard in order for me to qualify for authorship? Be precise. If I write something but the LLM polishes it up a bit, is it still my work? Or is it…

Consider the rules around copyright. If your part of it is substantive, then it's your own work. If it isn't, then it isn't.

I'm not going to define substantive for you. That's something you should feel obligated to research and learn about yourself; anything less is dishonest.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#448

Post by latexr »

int_19h wrote: post #318
iandinwoodie wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also from the article: > "Claude clearly made things worse" &emdash; the main claim This article was clearly generated by AI, yet I found no mention/attribution of that by author. How likely is it than someone who vibe codes articles would also vibe code the underlying analysis and be eager to accept an outcome that is highly validating of that person’s workflow? I’d say very.

Are the numbers wrong? That's the only relevant thing here. Also, humans do use em dashes, just FYI.

> Are the numbers wrong? That's the only relevant thing here.

Data without interpretation is irrelevant, and correct numbers can be interpreted wrongly, either on purpose or by mistake.

I’m not saying any of that happened here, only that “are the numbers wrong” is not the only thing that is relevant.

> humans do use em dashes, just FYI.

Your parent comment is not complaining about em dashes, they are pointing out the article has a literal “&emdash;” in it.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#449

Post by kelnos »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #187
ezst wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people prefer organic grown food for all kinds of reasons, does it matter to you they would want the same for code? (Also, I'm not picking a side here)

It matters when I'm contributing to their projects. In that case I'll go out of my way to be polite and learn their rules.

That's really all anyone is asking of you. It's odd that this is your position, and yet you seem to be arguing (in your other comments) in a way that seems like you think that you should be able to do whatever you want, with any project, their requirements be damned.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#450

Post by kelnos »

eschaton wrote: post #236
infamouscow wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only fraud if a person signed their name stating such. Their name being attached to the commit is itself, irrelevant, as their is no way to submit a patch otherwise. You could use a fake name, but you're just moving this fraud problem around. You're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that using a tool constitutes fraud. Frankly, it's silly, if not genuinely stupid. Film photographers in the early 2000s…

Intent and custom both matter quite a bit in law. It is customary to treat the name attached to a commit as the copyright holder of any changes represented by that commit, just as it was for the sender of an email containing a patch back when that was how such work was done. Often this is also spelled out in a project’s contribution guidelines, and some projects have even had more explicit copyright assignment polici…

> Intent and custom both matter quite a bit in law.

Indeed, and I'm not aware of any (Western, at least) legal system that would consider it fraud to not disclose that an LLM had generated some code.

I'd like to gently point out that your insistence of fraud here is hurting your overall argument, and is causing people to focus on the language you're using, instead of the substance of what you're trying to say. I do agree with you that people should disclose LLM generation when writing commits. But the way you're going about arguing this "fraud" thing is an unproductive dead end.

Post reply on HN