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

531–540 of 611 posts

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#531

Post by runarberg »

wzdd wrote: post #481
runarberg wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a lot more context to the outrage which is missing from your analysis. People have multiple reasons to be mad at AI usage, you mention some of them in your introduction, and you put a (statistically insignificant) measure on only one of them. In your analysis you have shown that exactly one of these reasons is anecdotal. That does not mean they are wrong, and it especially does not mean they are unjustified.…

> In your analysis you have shown that exactly one of these reasons is anecdotal. This was actually the convincing one for me though. “Did AI increase the rsync bug rate? Dunno, can’t tell yet” seems like a fine conclusion to me. Plenty of people in this thread and previous ones on the topic seem convinced one way or another, so it’s nice to see actual numbers.

The numbers are statistically insignificant though. So you cannot use them to generalize over a wider population.

I think in this era of scientific literacy people tend to overcorrect in the absence of evidence. Anecdotal evidence still evidence though, and people are right to react to them.

If we remove our frequentis hats and put on our baysian hat (which is a wise thing to do when n is very low) we can take into consideration evidence from multiple direction at the same time as we upgrade our belief. A baysian might start with the prior that claude assisted commits have the same distribution as non-assisted commits. I would start with a Poisson distribution as my prior, and then they would factor inn all the evidence of AI slop they have seen in their lives and update their posteriors accordingly. Claude caude has been wrong about so many things in the past, which should contribute to a smaller lambda then the control group.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#532

Post by runarberg »

MichaelDickens wrote: post #491
logicprog wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The statistical methodology I used is mine. As is the interpretation. Completely. To the degree that I misunderstood statistics (and it is under debate even in the thread you link, and the people accusing me of misunderstanding statistics there are universally misrepresenting my point, which is to point out a total absence of evidence for any difference, not to prove the null hypothesis) that's on me

FWIW I understood your point just fine. It seemed to me that you made a clear enough distinction between "evidence that Claude didn't increase bugs" and "no good evidence either way".

I don’t think that point is clear at all, at least in this comment sections you can find a few posts like these:

> Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

>

> TFA answered this, the answer is “no”.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48423811

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#533

Post by moktonar »

I think we should start having ai versions like beta ora alpha versions and then consolidate them into human made versions with time, at least one is free to stay safe or on the bleeding edge as one likes and we all get a win-win best-of-all-worlds situation (hopefully)

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#534

Post by matheusmoreira »

Laurel1234 wrote: post #455
matheusmoreira wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This should be the top comment. I think it's pretty sad that he even had to write it. Quite a lot of judgement from people who aren't paying his bills.

Yeah a big reason you see so much pushback on clanker slop is that it's having (and there was certainly the expectation of it having) a negative impact on the ability of plenty of people to pay their bills.

Nice to know we've got slurs for LLMs and their users now. Very nice.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#535

Post by tptacek »

jodrellblank wrote: post #526
tptacek wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Explain why the metaphor doesn’t operate here? Bonus points, don’t use the word “entitled”.

Why would I need to? Nobody volunteered. In the analogy, you found something on a shelf somewhere and decided to depend on it. The person who put it on the shelf never agreed to support you in that endeavor.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#536

Post by dml2135 »

eschaton wrote: post #364
dml2135 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any court cases you can point to that have clearly established that using LLM generated code can be a copyright violation? My understanding is that this is very far from being settled law.

What cases can you cite that have determined it’s not? It’s clear on its face that LLMs can and do store and reproduce copyrighted works; using a form of (somewhat) lossy data compression. And using a lossy stochastic or perceptual form of compression to reproduce a copyrighted work doesn’t somehow make it not storage or reproduction, otherwise sharing MP3 files wouldn’t be copyright infringement. Anyone engaging in…

There are billion-dollar entities preparing to fight this very question out in court as we speak.

Your interpretation of the law is certainly plausible, but it is clearly not a settled question.

If you really are so confident, go bet on Kalshi and make some easy money: https://kalshi.com/markets/kxnytoai/new-york-times-wins-open...

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#537

Post by ch_fr »

simianwords wrote: post #522
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…

Strange thing to say. The post does a good job of showing that there is no evidence Claude had anything to do with the regressions. Your problem is that this was shown? You don't value epistemics -- you care about the ideology more than truth. Even if you don't like AI you should still do it in the right way. Your comment comes across as more unself aware and more destructive. Lets keep this place truth first and ide…

Yeah yeah the usual "look, these anti-ai people are so EMOTIONAL and HYSTERICAL while we're very logical and fact-based", I've lurked for a while so I read that one plenty of times.

OP spends a lot of time time doing statistics, but when another person replies "hey, 2 claude-authored features is not really statistically significant", the author literally agrees and says "my point was to show that you can't draw conclusions". Direct quote:

> I'm only trying to show there's no evidence for the anti-AI hypothesis

---

And here's another thing. How exactly is it self-unaware to say "Hey, I get your frustration with people being assholes, I'm not excusing it, but it can never hurt to understand why some of them have become so extreme in their vitriol, here's a few reasons for their feelings".

Is "feelings" a curse word or something? What's so wrong with understanding the emotional component of the AI discourse?

Talking about "emotions" is not destructive when the topic at hand is literally people being driven by emotion under a github thread.

What the article is saying is "these people are acting irrational because they're evil and the enemy, so here's how I prove them wrong with statistics!", and my comment to the article was "hey, you seem to go with the assumption that this is all based on pure evil, here are a few reasons why people might get tired, and then angry, about this whole thing".

You quite literally exemplify my point when I said that the analysis is mostly just >ammo for your next "debate with your anti-AI ennemies", it's a tool that allows you to not engage and dismiss any argument as "not on the side of truth because not on the side of the numbers".

All of this even though, and I need to state this again, I never once rejected the analysis or the results that OP came to, all I did was point out that OP is also engaging in "us vs them" think with the occasional "wink wink, CLASSIC AI hater amirite?" sprinkled in the article.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#538

Post by tumetab1 »

rsc wrote: post #354
Eufrat wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Tridge is simultaneously trying to be proactive and kinda giving too much credit to marketing. Anthropic has not been able to really give numbers or actual values on what Mythos can really do. It just waved Mythos in front of the public like a boogeyman screaming that AI is going to cause a security nightmare (and it has, but mostly through vibe coded trash from what I’ve noticed); I’m hard pressed to find th…

As a long-time open-source maintainer, I find all the second-guessing and armchair psychoanalysis here (not just in this comment, all over HN) about Tridge's motivations, state of mind, and so on incredibly off-putting. Tridge doesn't owe anyone anything as far as rsync is concerned. Yet he is spending his time maintaining it, only to be attacked for his efforts. To respond to the specific technical point, there real…

I follow Go security issues and many recent ones are consequences of features added to Go and also security researches following up on an area after one issue is found.

Recent examples are certification validation logic, one issue after an another... because it's a mess of thing to implement.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#539

Post by mexicocitinluez »

agentultra wrote: post #530
mexicocitinluez wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Maybe you want to resist normalizing the use of GenAI for programming? I know my personal choice doesn’t make much of a difference but I refuse to own a car. I advocate at my local city council to remove car storage from streets, remove parking minimums, add better transit, make the core of our city car-free. It sometimes feels easier to join in and just accept that this is the way of the world but I refuse to believ…

Are you intentionally misreading my comments?

I asked a simple question: What technical concerns could possibly exist if the code is good?

I made it very clear I wasn't talking about personal, political, or ethical arguments.

> But I do know there’s no sense pretending like they don’t have a point or feigning shock that someone might not have the same view as you do.

Where am I feigning shock? Are you reading the right comment thread before you're replying?

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#540

Post by KaiShips »

GodelNumbering wrote: post #234

Was just looking at commits and came across a commit and its revert original commit: https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/commit/d046525de39315d... ``` - if (!ptr) - ptr = malloc(num * size); - else if (ptr == do_calloc) + if (!ptr || ptr == do_calloc) ptr = calloc(num, size); ``` Written with claude. This is a good example of what slips through LLM attention. It forces all allocations to be calloc as if it is a str…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN