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

541–550 of 611 posts

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#541

Post by karagenit »

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".

It seems like based on e.g. [1] the article originally made some stronger claims about “no difference in bugs” that have been corrected. I agree that now it seems fine, but those edits might be why it feels like some commenters read a different article than you.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48418186

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#542

Post by eschaton »

kelnos wrote: post #450
eschaton wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

The fraud isn’t (directly) in hiding that the LLM generated some code. The fraud is in the (implicit) misrepresentation of ownership of and/or rights to the code.

When you send a patch or pull request to a project, you’re saying (implicitly) that you have the necessary rights to contribute the intellectual property it contains. If you used an LLM to “generate” some of it, that is not necessarily the case.

A similar situation would occur if you agreed to pay someone else to create a patch, and then submitted it under your own name without paying them. Because it’s a work for hire, it’s not yours until they’re paid for it, so you’re fraudulently misrepresenting your rights to that patch to the project. If you did pay the creator, you don’t have to attribute them unless it’s in the contract between you and the creator, or unless the project requires such attribution.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#543

Post by jasonvorhe »

kelipso wrote: post #383
Eufrat wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I agree that the entire episode is obscene, but I am also unsure of what to do here either. On some level this is the same problem movie stars run into. I agree that guessing or waxing about the mot…

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.

This "social contract" seems to be vocabulary that people use to rationalize their assumptions about how the world should work. A contract requires consent of both parties.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#544

Post by pie_flavor »

ch_fr wrote: post #537
simianwords wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 concl…

If someone spouts untruths, that is a failing of theirs. Talking about how there's emotions of theirs that back this promulgation of untruths, emotions which you could understand if you tried, is putting the cart before the horse. First express things that are not trivially false, then I will try to understand what you mean by it.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#545

Post by jasonvorhe »

Eufrat wrote: post #397
tptacek wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No there isn't.

I just cannot understand this logic, can you explain why there is no responsibility whatsoever on the part of a maintainer towards the users? Selling a toaster has an implicit warranty of merchantability. Society expects that if you sell me something, it should have certain promises. Yes, there’s no monetary exchange here, the work is given gratis, but there’s still a relationship and an interaction here and I think…

That toaster example sounds so nonsensical that I'm expecting you to deliver on your indirect promise of backing that up with evidence because of this special relationship of ours you established via interaction so these expectations are obviously implied by you commenting here.

Please continue.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#546

Post by Laurel1234 »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #534
Laurel1234 wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not a slur, clankers ain't people.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#547

Post by agentultra »

mexicocitinluez wrote: post #539
agentultra wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rig…

> 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.

Maybe I was reading too much into this part of your comment.

Plenty of folks don’t separate the ethical, political, or moral from the technology. For them using it is condoning it. Like for me, owning a car is contributing to car culture. It might be inconvenient for me or seem backwards to others but it’s worth resisting. They want to know that something was written with AI so they can avoid supporting AI or condoning its use.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#548

Post by scottlamb »

GodelNumbering wrote: post #261
delusional wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't really have to guess. The guy told us the AI didn't suggest this specific change: > The change to zero memory was my idea and my change. It was a reaction to a security report I got which caused use of an element past the end of an array. By zeroing the allocation I could ensure that misuse of that memory if a similar bug came up in the future could only cause a null ptr deref, which is better than the chan…

okay I had not read this or any discussions there (except the one linked in the post), but this looks weirder. the comment you linked is a dev responding to what is very clearly a bot comment. I am sure they have good intentions and I have no reason to believe otherwise as I have no connection to the project whatsoever, but the original commit being 4-5 lines long (what did claude do then?) and the revert description…

> the original commit being 4-5 lines long (what did claude do then?)

I've said "rebase onto " and let it handle all the merge conflicts. I wouldn't expect this particular commit to conflict with anything, but it could have been part of a big series where it'd be worth doing that instead of running the rebase command yourself. It wouldn't surprise me if I picked up some Co-Authored-By:s along the way.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#549

Post by celiacFun »

Eufrat wrote: post #397
tptacek wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No there isn't.

I just cannot understand this logic, can you explain why there is no responsibility whatsoever on the part of a maintainer towards the users? Selling a toaster has an implicit warranty of merchantability. Society expects that if you sell me something, it should have certain promises. Yes, there’s no monetary exchange here, the work is given gratis, but there’s still a relationship and an interaction here and I think…

You have given the maintainer nothing. There is no relationship, no interaction. If you want to change open source code fork it and do as you please. No one owes you free labor.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#550

Post by runarberg »

pie_flavor wrote: post #544
ch_fr wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 concl…

If someone spouts untruths, that is a failing of theirs. Talking about how there's emotions of theirs that back this promulgation of untruths, emotions which you could understand if you tried, is putting the cart before the horse. First express things that are not trivially false, then I will try to understand what you mean by it.

What in the AI discourse is trivially false? On one side we have almost all the money in the world, owners of giant social media companies, with easy access to media, who buy ads, etc. to tell you that half of us will be out of jobs in the next 6 months, that AI superinteligence is coming next year, that singularity is upon us, that Claude Mythos will cause so much harm it has to be contained, etc. etc.

I consider all of the above trivially false untruths. But on the other hand you have rsync users who are fed up with all the lies, all the propaganda, all the fear mongering brought up by literally the richest people the world has ever seen, who have experienced AI slop first hand, who have been tricked by AI music, are fed up by all the AI generated posters at their local coffee stand, have given up on trying to correct their coworkers AI generated code during peer review. And now these rsync users see AI slop has been pushed to their favorite tools, and see a new bugs popping up at the same time.

I consider the latter a completely understandable reaction. Yes they jumped to conclusion, but in doing so they have evidence. They have both anecdotal and circumstantial evidence for their conclusions. In comparison, the AI singularity people have nothing but vibes and science fiction behind their conclusions.

Post reply on HN