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

511–520 of 611 posts

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#511

Post by matheusmoreira »

kelnos wrote: post #444
matheusmoreira wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

As I said, attribution is polite. If you're going to openly pre-judge and disrespect people on that basis though, the calculus changes.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#512

Post by bwfan123 »

yubblegum wrote: post #279
echelon wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like someone could use Claude to port rsync to Rust and the whole enterprise would be safer from things like this. Start with unsafe then gradually convert into idiomatic Rust.

Your let's redo this in Rust made me wonder if generative AI will also be susceptible to software fads. One LLM writes a few blog posts extoling a new framework/lanaguge. Other agentics read these and get 'influenced'. Then they start clamoring for 'lets redo this in X!'. Can't wait to see it. /g

> Then they start clamoring for 'lets redo this in X!'

Elon announces that spacex wrote its AI software in C. And now suddenly, C has become the new (old) kid on the block. Now we have folks saying, lets redo this in C as it gives you full power over the machine since we are 10x engineers. Earlier it was rust this or rust that. So, fads work both ways.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#513

Post by mexicocitinluez »

agentultra wrote: post #503
mexicocitinluez wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's decent code, but attributed to AI, how does that change things? What real-world impacts does that have? That's what I can't for the life of me figure out. Bad code is bad code regardless of who is writing it. Adding a disclaimer about how it was written is meaningless. Hell, it could say "Written by the Easter bunny" and that would have 0 impact on it's utility.

Not the commenter you replied to: I think many people in this camp have political or ethical concerns and want to avoid contributing to or supporting the companies behind frontier-AI tools. Or they have moral or technical concerns and want to boycott usage to maintain their principles. It should be fairly widely known at this point.

Obviously people have those concerns. The comment above specifically said:

> The value of the Claude attribution is that you can tell at a glance who used AI.

Specifies none of that, which is why I was asking the question.

> technical concerns

Which is exactly why I asked what I did. What technical concerns could possibly exist if the code is good? What does adding that attribution remove or add to technical concerns that you can't already see from the code itself?

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#514

Post by bwfan123 »

ch_fr wrote: post #500

This article is a rant disguised as data analysis. I don't know how to word this in a non-confrontational, respectful way, but this article just feels like ammo for your next "debate with your anti-AI ennemies" where you get to say "look, I proved with data that those people had a disproportionate reaction and have double standards, therefore anyone who dislikes LLMs or their impact are the same!". Like, sorry, I kno…

> "look, here's how [other camp] behaves"

Motivated reasoning in both camps.

There are folks incentivized by AI: engineers and managers working for AI related companies who justify their beliefs with selective facts. And then there are engineers who are threatened by AI and are extra-sensitive to slop.

The article is missing the point that once camps have made up their minds - no amount of analysis is going to change that.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#515

Post by tptacek »

jodrellblank wrote: post #487
kelnos wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> can you explain why there is no responsibility whatsoever on the part of a maintainer towards the users? Because I don't. It's that simple. There is nothing that says I have a responsibility, and the license I release under even makes it clear and explicit that I have no responsibility. So I don't. If you are going to claim that I do have a responsibility, then the onus is on you to present some solid, convincing,…

> “ solid, convincing, extraordinary evidence or argumentation to support that. ” Just ordinary evidence. If there was a charity event which asked for a volunteer to organise drinks, and you volunteered, and then there were no drinks, and you said “I don’t owe you anything stop being entitled, if you want an event with drinks you can fork the idea and organise your own”, people would be unhappy and reasonably so. It’…

That metaphor doesn't operate here. People are building stuff and making it available. Nobody's making a commitment. Nobody's "volunteering" for you.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#516

Post by matheusmoreira »

kelnos wrote: post #449
matheusmoreira wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because the reasons for doing it matter. The "different failure modes" argument is a fair point. Since it changes the way code is reviewed, it is polite to disclose use of LLMs.

But you and others in this thread seem hellbent on stigmatizing it to the point you take it as evidence of someone's incompetence. So I'm not at all sympathetic to your "requirements".

That's really all anyone's asking of you: enough respect for your fellow programmers that you avoid pre-judging them. If you can't do that, then what do we care about your "requirements"?

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#517

Post by tptacek »

kelnos wrote: post #424
kelipso wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah the maintainers don’t owe users nothing is a disgusting sentiment that doesn’t stand real scrutiny. There is a social contract here. If you want to be respected and get recognized as “tridge” or whatever your name is, you owe the people that recognize you and that wider community in general.

First off: I don't agree that there's a social contract here at all. That's just some imaginary thing that you (and others) have decided exists. It's funny how lots of people who aren't open source maintainers seem to think it's ok to make up social contracts for other people without their consent. But ok, let's just pretend for a second that maintainers have indeed entered into some sort of social contract that give…

This is great, but I can shorten it for you for times in the future you need to deploy it: "DM for my rate card".

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#518

Post by davrosthedalek »

bwfan123 wrote: post #514
ch_fr wrote: post #500

This article is a rant disguised as data analysis. I don't know how to word this in a non-confrontational, respectful way, but this article just feels like ammo for your next "debate with your anti-AI ennemies" where you get to say "look, I proved with data that those people had a disproportionate reaction and have double standards, therefore anyone who dislikes LLMs or their impact are the same!". Like, sorry, I kno…

> "look, here's how [other camp] behaves" Motivated reasoning in both camps. There are folks incentivized by AI: engineers and managers working for AI related companies who justify their beliefs with selective facts. And then there are engineers who are threatened by AI and are extra-sensitive to slop. The article is missing the point that once camps have made up their minds - no amount of analysis is going to change…

Why it is probably and regrettably true that few people in camps will change their mind, data analysis can help people who haven't been captured yet to either stay away from the camps or at least fall into the "more correct" one.

Stay out of camps, people!

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#519

Post by matheusmoreira »

kelnos wrote: post #446
matheusmoreira wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe you should stop making excuses for the summary dismissal of people's years old projects as slop on the basis that an LLM touched it.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#520

Post by ch_fr »

pie_flavor wrote: post #505
ch_fr wrote: post #500

This article is a rant disguised as data analysis. I don't know how to word this in a non-confrontational, respectful way, but this article just feels like ammo for your next "debate with your anti-AI ennemies" where you get to say "look, I proved with data that those people had a disproportionate reaction and have double standards, therefore anyone who dislikes LLMs or their impact are the same!". Like, sorry, I kno…

Why is the guy being rigorous worthy of criticism, but the guys being idiots aren't? Did you post any similar calm-down comments in either of the HN threads on the original attacks?

I am more inclined to be critical of AI boosters, so what? Am I supposed to crumble under the weight of immense cognitive dissonance because I have... a stance in the discourse?

These guys on the github thread aren't my friends, I have no concern for them embarrassing themselves or leaving a bad digital footprint by drawing ms paint gore. I also have no concern for OP, but it just so happened to be the post I found, and I just so happened to be in the mood to leave a comment.

Engaging in LLM discourse is already a waste of my time, I'm not going to waste more of it just to avoid fallacious accusations of double standards because I didn't "do the same for the other side".

Post reply on HN