Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI has a deep understanding of how this code works

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 329 posts

Re: AI has a deep understanding of how this code works

#11

Post by snickerbockers »

djoldman wrote: post #5

Maintainers and repo owners will get where they want to go the fastest by not referring to what/who "generated" code in a PR. Discussions about AI/LLM code being a problem solely because AI/LLM is not generally a productive conversation. Better is to critique the actual PR itself. For example, needs more tests, needs to be broken up, doesn't follow our protocols for merging/docs, etc. Additionally, if there isn't a c…

I don't suppose you saw the post where OP asked claude to explain why this patch was not plagiarized? It's pretty damning.

Re: AI has a deep understanding of how this code works

#13

Post by chii »

rogerrogerr wrote: post #8
djoldman wrote: post #5

Maintainers and repo owners will get where they want to go the fastest by not referring to what/who "generated" code in a PR. Discussions about AI/LLM code being a problem solely because AI/LLM is not generally a productive conversation. Better is to critique the actual PR itself. For example, needs more tests, needs to be broken up, doesn't follow our protocols for merging/docs, etc. Additionally, if there isn't a c…

AI/LLMs are a problem because they create plausible looking code that can pass any review I have time to do, but doesn’t have a brain behind it that can be accountable for the code later. As a maintainer, it used to be I could merge code that “looked good”, and if it did something subtly goofy later I could look in the blame, ping the guy who wrote it, and get a “oh yeah, I did that to flobberate the bazzle. Didn’t t…

> doesn’t have a brain behind it that can be accountable for the code later.

the submitter could also bail just as easily. Having an AI make the PR or not makes zero difference for this accountability. Ultimately, the maintainer pressing the merge button is accountable.

What else would your value be as a maintainer, if all you did was a surface look, press merge, then find blame later when shit hits the fan?

Re: AI has a deep understanding of how this code works

#14

Post by rogerrogerr »

chii wrote: post #13
rogerrogerr wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI/LLMs are a problem because they create plausible looking code that can pass any review I have time to do, but doesn’t have a brain behind it that can be accountable for the code later. As a maintainer, it used to be I could merge code that “looked good”, and if it did something subtly goofy later I could look in the blame, ping the guy who wrote it, and get a “oh yeah, I did that to flobberate the bazzle. Didn’t t…

> doesn’t have a brain behind it that can be accountable for the code later. the submitter could also bail just as easily. Having an AI make the PR or not makes zero difference for this accountability. Ultimately, the maintainer pressing the merge button is accountable. What else would your value be as a maintainer, if all you did was a surface look, press merge, then find blame later when shit hits the fan?

I don’t accept giant contributions from people who don’t have track records of sticking around. It’s faster for me to write something myself than review huge quantities of outsider code as a zero-trust artifact.

Re: AI has a deep understanding of how this code works

#15

Post by lambda_foo »

autumnstwilight wrote: post #7

>>> Here's my question: why did the files that you submitted name Mark Shinwell as the author? >>> Beats me. AI decided to do so and I didn't question it. Really sums the whole thing up...

Pretty much. I guess it’s open source but it’s not in the spirit of open source contribution.

Plus it puts the burden of reviewing the AI slop onto the project maintainers and the future maintenance is not the submitters problem. So you’ve generated lots of code using AI, nice work that’s faster for you but slower for everyone else around you.

Re: AI has a deep understanding of how this code works

#16

Post by lambda_foo »

snickerbockers wrote: post #11
djoldman wrote: post #5

Maintainers and repo owners will get where they want to go the fastest by not referring to what/who "generated" code in a PR. Discussions about AI/LLM code being a problem solely because AI/LLM is not generally a productive conversation. Better is to critique the actual PR itself. For example, needs more tests, needs to be broken up, doesn't follow our protocols for merging/docs, etc. Additionally, if there isn't a c…

I don't suppose you saw the post where OP asked claude to explain why this patch was not plagiarized? It's pretty damning.

Why have the OP in the loop at all if he’s just sending prompts to AI? Surely it’s a wonderful piece of performance art.

Re: AI has a deep understanding of how this code works

#17

Post by [deleted] »

djoldman wrote: post #5

Maintainers and repo owners will get where they want to go the fastest by not referring to what/who "generated" code in a PR. Discussions about AI/LLM code being a problem solely because AI/LLM is not generally a productive conversation. Better is to critique the actual PR itself. For example, needs more tests, needs to be broken up, doesn't follow our protocols for merging/docs, etc. Additionally, if there isn't a c…

[deleted]

Re: AI has a deep understanding of how this code works

#18

Post by skeledrew »

lambda_foo wrote: post #15
autumnstwilight wrote: post #7

>>> Here's my question: why did the files that you submitted name Mark Shinwell as the author? >>> Beats me. AI decided to do so and I didn't question it. Really sums the whole thing up...

Pretty much. I guess it’s open source but it’s not in the spirit of open source contribution. Plus it puts the burden of reviewing the AI slop onto the project maintainers and the future maintenance is not the submitters problem. So you’ve generated lots of code using AI, nice work that’s faster for you but slower for everyone else around you.

Another consideration here that hits both sides at once is that the maintainers on the project are few. So while it could be a great burden pushing generated code on them for review, it also seems a great burden to get new features done in the first place. So it boils down to the choice of dealing with generated code for X feature, or not having X feature for a long time, if ever.

Re: AI has a deep understanding of how this code works

#19

Post by ares623 »

chii wrote: post #13
rogerrogerr wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI/LLMs are a problem because they create plausible looking code that can pass any review I have time to do, but doesn’t have a brain behind it that can be accountable for the code later. As a maintainer, it used to be I could merge code that “looked good”, and if it did something subtly goofy later I could look in the blame, ping the guy who wrote it, and get a “oh yeah, I did that to flobberate the bazzle. Didn’t t…

> doesn’t have a brain behind it that can be accountable for the code later. the submitter could also bail just as easily. Having an AI make the PR or not makes zero difference for this accountability. Ultimately, the maintainer pressing the merge button is accountable. What else would your value be as a maintainer, if all you did was a surface look, press merge, then find blame later when shit hits the fan?

If I had a magic wand I would wish for 2 parallel open source communities diverging from today.

One path continues on the track it has always been on, human written and maintained.

The other is fully on the AI track. Massive PRs with reviewers rubber stamping them.

I’d love to see which track comes out ahead.

Edit: in fact, perhaps there are open source projects already fully embracing AI authored contributions?

Re: AI has a deep understanding of how this code works

#20

Post by ctenb »

ares623 wrote: post #19
chii wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> doesn’t have a brain behind it that can be accountable for the code later. the submitter could also bail just as easily. Having an AI make the PR or not makes zero difference for this accountability. Ultimately, the maintainer pressing the merge button is accountable. What else would your value be as a maintainer, if all you did was a surface look, press merge, then find blame later when shit hits the fan?

If I had a magic wand I would wish for 2 parallel open source communities diverging from today. One path continues on the track it has always been on, human written and maintained. The other is fully on the AI track. Massive PRs with reviewers rubber stamping them. I’d love to see which track comes out ahead. Edit: in fact, perhaps there are open source projects already fully embracing AI authored contributions?

I agree. It would also work out like a long term supervised learning process though. Humans showing how it's really done, and AI companies taking that as a gold standard for training and development of AI.
Post reply on HN