261–270 of 468 posts
People have to realise that AI is here to stay. Being a full time AI hater is counterproductive. Commercial vendors with full time employees are leveraging for maximum benefits, why would a project depending on volunteers resist? Not forgetting it's shortcomings
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.
> Except LLMs actually are making programmers dumber. Make that some/a lot, but not all. There is a clear bifurcation. A lot of those that never cared really don't care now, but then you get others that can use it to crank that much harder than ever before. If you put the same brain effort in but leverage LLMs you really can be dramatically more productive.
Just like when Boeing decided that their QA process should be abridged to save wasted time and money!
And that worked perfectly.
(edit: rereading I think maybe you don't support not reviewing all of LLM code you submit, but the above was written with another impression)
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.
A good thing about the "you're the author regardless of the tool you used to produce the code" policy is that if a developer repeatedly submits poor quality AI generated code, one does not blame the model or the agent, one bans/terminates the developer.
A lot of developers who are submitting these AI patches don't necessarily understand the patch, so the onus is on the reviewer/code-owner.
The reviewers are getting swamped (some reviewers are receiving 100s or patches per month). If feedback is provided at lot of the time the patch author will just copy paste from an LLM, so the reviewer is essentially just coding with an LLM with more steps.
Prior to LLMs reviewing code was a mentorship experience, the patch author would likely learn a bunch afterwards. Now less so.
As a result a lot of projects are closing to external contributors.
I'm not sure what the answer is, LLM are great at speeding up coding/understanding/etc, but the valuable/expensive piece of work has shifted to reviewing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
[flagged]
( T T ): - *: ‑ X
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. There are pockets of hardline anti-LLM policies for various reasons. SourceHut bans LLM generated code from their platform https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49461724 The Asahi Linux project bans LLMs. Unfortunate as LLM reverse engineering and driver writing would bring Linux to more Mac models much faster. The Zig project rejects LLM based contributions. Some of these policies were introduced when LLMs were…
> Some groups don’t care about the quality and object on moral or copyright grounds. Precisely why Debian Project's decision is both baffling and infuriating. I hope Debian forks over this. They have severely lost their way.
The "moral" argument I haven't even heard. It's just people pouring out invective, likely imo because Ruby-monkey is not going to be a $150K job anymore. I have problems with these companies, but companies who are problematic can be targeted specifically, and somehow everybody started using Facebook's frontend framework and Microsoft's IDE, all on MacBooks, and this is what they're throwing a shitfit about. To me it's narcissism, not a coherent moral objection.
If you hate these companies (as you should), there are open models. But most didn't object to anything that didn't threaten their income.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's perfectly wrong. Since strong coding AI, people venture into huge rewrites and other big changes that automatically make sense but otherwise would not.
Yeah it's a bizarre claim. Even better, I've literally taken some of the crappy experimental projects from the pre-Opus 4.6 era, and turned them into real software as models have become smarter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HA! Touché.
That might be an interesting parallel. Maybe code becomes like legal documents. Binding but inscrutable, full of small mistakes and not really tailored for human ingestion.
A new technology, AI, greatly reduces costs in software development. When a new technology makes inputs cheaper, there's a choice: Reduce the cost of the product, or keep the cost the same and spend the newly available resources on improving product (or somewhere between those poles). For example, if the cost of chickens goes down, the farmer can buy a lot more chickens and produce a lot more eggs, or they can keep their expenses the same and now afford higher quality chickens or production (free-range!).
In software development, facing this new trade-off, people seem to overwhelmingly choose to produce the same software but far more of it, whether or not anyone wants it.
What if instead we made much higher quality software? Larger projects, at least, haven't wanted more pull requests; they have wanted better code. With the AI handling much of the work, the developer's attention can be applied to more difficult tasks. We absolutely need better software, especially with AI systems finding exploits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Extremes on both sides. I'd wager were moving in Yegge's direction though, like it or not. > Though it's being argued that you could still be responsible for it without looking at it? If you have a much test coverage as SQLite, I'd be tempted to trust it, and I think that's where we are headed. Someone still needs to define these guardrails though, so IMO the developers job is just mutating into something else, but i…
For me, it’s not a question of whether I like it, nor where we might move in the future, but purely what is proven currently. In my experience, as in my evals, any model, including notably Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol can and indeed do produce code that does not consider many edge cases, can be hard to maintain (especially Sol though it’s output has become markedly better with recent changes to Codex) and sometimes introd…
Also I suspect you overprompt, with GPT-5.6 (sol, terra and luna), a lot's of what's used to be mandatory in the AGENT.md is redondant at best and frequantly actively harmful.