Live data from Hacker News

I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits

maxemitchell.com

111–120 of 291 posts

Re: I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits

#111
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we please stop using the em-dash as a metric to “detect” LLM writing? It’s lazy and wrong. Plenty of people use em-dashes, it’s a useful punctuation mark . If humans didn’t use them, they wouldn’t be in the LLM training data. There are better clues, like the kind of vague pretentious babble bad marketers use to make their products and ideas seem more profound than they are. It’s a type of bad writing which looks…

Very few people use n dashes in internet writing as opposed to dashes as they are not available on the default keyboard.

That’s not true at all. Apple’s OS by default have smart punctuation enabled and convert -- (two hyphens) into — (“em-dash”; not an “en-dash”, which has a different purpose), " " (dumb quotes) into “ ” (smart quotes), and so forth.

Furthermore, on macOS there are simple key combinations (e.g. with ⌥) to make all sort of smart punctuation even if you don’t have the feature enabled by default, and on iOS you can long press on a key (such as the hyphen) to see alternates.

The majority of people may not use correct punctuation marks, but enough do that assuming a single character immediately means they used an LLM is just plain wrong. I have never used an LLM to write a blog post, internet comment, or anything of the sort, and I have used smart punctuation in all my writing for over a decade. Same with plenty of other HN commenters, journalists, writers, editors, and on and on. You don’t need to be a literal machine to care about correct character use.

Re: I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits

#112
post #88

Many of you are failing to conprehend the potential scale of AI generated codebases. Take note - there is no limit. Every feature you or the AI can prompt can be generated. Imagine if you were immortal and given unlimited storage. Imagine what you could create. That’s a prompt away. Even now you’re still restricting your thinking to the old ways.

> That’s a prompt away.

Currently, it's 6 prompts away in which 5 of those are me guiding the LLM to output the answer that I already have in mind.

Re: I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits

#113
So, it means that you and the LLM together have managed to write SEVEN lines of trivial code per hour. On a protocol that is perfectly documented, where you can look at about one million other implementations when in doubt.

It is not my intention to hurt your feelings, but it sounds like you and/or the LLM are not really good at their job. Looking at programmer salaries and LLM energy costs, this appears to be a very very VERY expensive OAuth library.

Again: Not my intention to hurt any feelings, but the numbers really are shockingly bad.

Re: I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits

#114

So, it means that you and the LLM together have managed to write SEVEN lines of trivial code per hour. On a protocol that is perfectly documented, where you can look at about one million other implementations when in doubt. It is not my intention to hurt your feelings, but it sounds like you and/or the LLM are not really good at their job. Looking at programmer salaries and LLM energy costs, this appears to be a very…

Yes, my brain got confused on who wrote the code and who just reported about it. I am truly sorry. I will go see my LLM doctor to get my brain repaired.

Re: I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits

#115
post #43

These posts are funny to me because prompt engineers point at them as evidence of the fast-approaching software engineer obsolescence but the years of experience in software engineering necessary to even guide an AI in this way is very high. The reason he keeps adjusting the prompts is because he knows how to program. He knows what it should look like. It just blurs the line between engineer and tool.

I don't know why that's funny. This is not a post about a vibe coding session. It's Kenton Varda['s coding session]. later updated to clarify kentonv didn't write this article

The sequence of commits talked about by the OP -- i.e. kenton's coding session's commits -- are like one degree removed from 100% pure vibe coding.

Re: I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits

#116

> Reading through these commits sparked an idea: what if we treated prompts as the actual source code? Imagine version control systems where you commit the prompts used to generate features rather than the resulting implementation. Please god, no, never do this. For one thing, why would you not commit the generated source code when storage is essentially free? That seems insane for multiple reasons. > When models ine…

My work has involved a project that is almost entirely generated code for over a decade. Not AI generated, the actual work of the project is in creating the code generator. One of the things we learned very quickly was that having generated source code in the same repository as actual source code was not sustainable. The nature of reviewing changes is just too different between them. Another thing we learned very qui…

There’s a huge difference between deterministic generated code and LLM generated code. The latter will be different every time, sometimes significantly so. Subsequent prompts would almost immediately be useless. “You did X, but we want Y” would just blow up if the next time through the LLM (or the new model you’re trying) doesn’t produce X at all.

Re: I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits

#118
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, what's happening here is we're talking past each other. An agent lints and compiles code . The LLM is stochastic and unreliable. The agent is ~200 lines of Python code that checks the exit code of the compiler and relays it back to the LLM. You can easily fool an LLM. You can't fool the compiler. I didn't say anything about whether code needs to be reviewed line-by-line by humans. I review LLM code line-by-line.…

My guy didn't you spend like half your life in the field where your job was to sift through code that compiled but nonetheless had bugs that you tried to exploit? How can you possibly have this belief about AI generated code?

I don't understand this question. Yes, I spent about 20 years learning the lesson that code is profoundly knowable; to start with, you just read it. What challenge do you believe AI-generated code presents to me?

Re: I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits

#119
post #81
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, what's happening here is we're talking past each other. An agent lints and compiles code . The LLM is stochastic and unreliable. The agent is ~200 lines of Python code that checks the exit code of the compiler and relays it back to the LLM. You can easily fool an LLM. You can't fool the compiler. I didn't say anything about whether code needs to be reviewed line-by-line by humans. I review LLM code line-by-line.…

> If the LLM hallucinates, then the code it produces is wrong. That wrong code isn't obviously or programmatically determinable as wrong, the agent has no way to figure out that it's wrong, it's not as if the LLM produces at the same time tests that identify that hallucinated code as being wrong. The only way that this wrong code can be identified as wrong is by the human user "looking closely" and figuring out that…

When you say "the LLM can easily hallucinate code that will satisfy the compiler but still fail the actual intent of the user", all you are saying is that the code will have bugs. My code has bugs. So does yours. You don't get to use the fancy word "hallucination" for reasonable-looking, readable code that compiles and lints but has bugs.

I think at this point our respective points have been made, and we can wrap it up here.

Re: I read all of Cloudflare's Claude-generated commits

#120
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the developers I know personally who have been radicalized by coding agents, it happened within the past 9 months. It does not feel like we are in a phase of predictable boring improvement.

Radicalized? Going with the flow and wishes of the people who are driving AI is the opposite of that. To have their minds changed drastically, sure..

Sorry I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Post reply on HN