141–150 of 478 posts
New policy boils down to "AI or not, it's still your code and you're responsible for it". I can get on board with that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except LLMs actually are making programmers dumber. I personally know people, people whom I know for a fact were good programmers before, who have now completely stopped using their brains. When you ask them why they did something in the code, they say "I don't know, Claude did that and I didn't really question it". There was no such analogous phenomenon with IDEs.
You can just ask Claude why it did something in the code and it will tell you Programmers just moved up a level , not dumber, we are now managers of a team of 'agent' programmers. The deliverable is now a functionality instead of a specific block of code
If I need to understand a specific line of code it means I did something wrong in planning or in requirements for testing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IDEs enable us to not bother memorizing the number and order of arguments, long names beyond the first word or two, etc. the impact is comparable, freeing some of the very limited space in our memory for more important things. sure, students and juniors shoot themselves in the dick if they let LLMs do everything, but they're fucked anyway so it doesn't matter,
With AI people aren't reading, writing, or thinking about the code. I would not say something that helps me remember a function name is comparible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ... hysterical ... quasi-religiously ... I'm beginning to wonder if it might be the case that when my fellow citizens begin to act insane - might it be the result of foreign propaganda.
Home grown propaganda, pretending it's from "the others"
The examples I'm thinking of have definitely profited foreign interests, tho.
Look to see who profits.
New policy boils down to "AI or not, it's still your code and you're responsible for it". I can get on board with that.
Good. AI is a game changer. It's like having an expert sitting next to you at all times. It's understandable why all these experts who want to gatekeep don't like AI, but ultimately, AI will win out, it's just too good.
The issue with AI is not its obvious value, it's our dependence on it. I worry what will happen to me when I am cut off for some reason. Local models are going to be really important and hopefully computing costs don't make it too prohibitive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's still your code I wholly agree with your comment, but is it legally "your code"? Copyright is implicit at the moment of human creation. But there isn't yet settled law on AI-assisted creation. So it might be a problem for projects to accept contributions where it's not clear who actually owns that work.
> Copyright Literally irrelevant and I have no idea why people even bring this up constantly. Copyright is practically unenforceable in the software world, when was the last time you saw someone (a company or an individual) actually sue _and win_? Apple wasn't capable of stopping all the other phone manufacturers from directly cloning their product (despite having patents & copyright) so how can an individual? The on…
If you drop the copyright claim you drop the protection of free software freedoms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why AI agent attributions in commits is silly (it’s really just a stealth ad for the tool) Had someone at $DAYJOB just shrug and say Claude messed up when I pointed out a sql injection in the code in their PR. It became explicit policy at the company after that moment that blaming the AI is not an excuse for shoddy work.
> blaming the AI is not an excuse.. It kind of is if the company mandates LLM use. It is sort of sad that now programmers are suddenly expected to be perfect reviewers of code they didn't write.
New policy boils down to "AI or not, it's still your code and you're responsible for it". I can get on board with that.
From my layman understanding, the ownership of LLM generated code isn’t yet clarified. It could be that the person who prompted owns it, but it could also be nobody owns it, and we don’t yet have a legal ruling to rely upon, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What stops them from submitting PRs from another account?
Nothing. And that's the problem -- the issue isn't "should a contributor be able to use AI" it's quickly becoming "is this entire contributor an AI agent". Every actual-human who gets a bad first experience hurts the project. The contributors having to be suspicious of new people hurts the project. The whole thing just sucks, and I don't know how to fix it. I use claude-code, but the AI ecosystem and some of the auto…