131–140 of 293 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Intern generated code does not substitute for tech lead thinking, testing, and clean up/rewrite.
No, the code is generated by a tool that's "smarter than people in many ways". So which parts of "thinking, testing, and clean up/rewrite" can we trust it with?
I really like the phrase "bad AI drivers"...AI is a tool, and the stupid drive-by pull requests just mean you're being inconsiderate and unhelpful in your usage of the tool, similar to how "bad drivers" are a nightmare to encounter on a highway...so stop it or you'll end up on the dashcam subreddit of programming.
The experience of using a coding agent is that you're more of a "backseat driver" though. The AI acts as your driver and you tell it where to go, sometimes making corrections if it's going the wrong way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TBH Im not sure if this is a "growing up in a good area" vibe. But over the last decade or so I have had to slowly learn the people around me have no sense of shame. This wasnt their fault, but mine. Society has changed and if you don't adapt you'll end up confused and abused. I am not saying one has to lose their shame, but at best, understand it.
Shame is a good thing it shows one has a conscience and positive self regard. Just like pain is a good thing, it tells you and signals to remove your hand from the stove.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Problem is people seriously believe that whatever GPT tells them must be true, because… I don't even know. Just because it sounds self-confident and authoritative? Because computers are supposed to not make mistakes? Because talking computers in science fiction do not make mistakes like that? The fact that LLMs ended up having this particular failure mode, out of all possible failure modes, is incredibly unfortunate…
I think in science fiction it’s one of the most common themes for the talking computer to be utterly horribly wrong, often resulting in complete annihilation of all life on earth. Unless I have been reading very different science fiction I think it’s definitely not that. I think it’s more the confidence and seeming plausibility of LLM answers
The biggest surprise to me with all this low-quality contribution spam is how little shame people apparently have. I have a handful of open source contributions. All of them are for small-ish projects and the complexity of my contributions are in the same ball-park as what I work on day-to-day. And even though I am relatively confident in my competency as a developer, these contributions are probably the most thoroug…
"The biggest surprise to me with all this low-quality contribution spam is how little shame people apparently have." And this is one half of why I think "Bad AI drivers will be [..] ridiculed in public." isn't a good clause. The other is that ridiculing others, not matter what, is just no decent behavior. Putting it as a rule in your policy document makes it only worse.
What negative experience do you think should instead be created for people breaking these rules?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To me it sounds like "text and code" are free from the controversy surrounding AI-generated media. It really isn't, don't you recall the "protests" against Microsoft starting to use repositories hosted at GitHub for training their own coding models? Lots of articles and sentiments everywhere at the time. Seems to have died down though, probably because most developers seemingly at this point use LLMs in some capaci…
Right, that's what I'm thinking too (I'll update my statement a bit to make that more clear), but I constantly hear this perspective that it's all good for text and code but when it's media, then it's suddenly problematic. It's equally problematic for text and code.
> Bad AI drivers will be banned and ridiculed in public. You've been warned. We love to help junior developers learn and grow, but if you're interested in that then don't use AI, and we'll help you. I'm sorry that bad AI drivers have ruined this for you. Finally an AI policy I can agree with :) jokes aside, it might sound a bit too agressive but it's also true that some people have really no shame into overloading yo…
I don't think ridicule is an effective threat for people with no shame to begin with.
One of the theorized reasons for junk AI submissions is reputation boosting. So maybe this will help.
And I think it will help with people who just bought into the AI hype and are proceeding without much thought. Cluelessness can look a lot like shamelessness at first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To me it sounds like "text and code" are free from the controversy surrounding AI-generated media. It really isn't, don't you recall the "protests" against Microsoft starting to use repositories hosted at GitHub for training their own coding models? Lots of articles and sentiments everywhere at the time. Seems to have died down though, probably because most developers seemingly at this point use LLMs in some capaci…
Right, that's what I'm thinking too (I'll update my statement a bit to make that more clear), but I constantly hear this perspective that it's all good for text and code but when it's media, then it's suddenly problematic. It's equally problematic for text and code.
The biggest surprise to me with all this low-quality contribution spam is how little shame people apparently have. I have a handful of open source contributions. All of them are for small-ish projects and the complexity of my contributions are in the same ball-park as what I work on day-to-day. And even though I am relatively confident in my competency as a developer, these contributions are probably the most thoroug…
> The biggest surprise to me with all this low-quality contribution spam is how little shame people apparently have. ever had a client second guess you by replying you a screenshot from GPT? ever asked anything in a public group only to have a complete moron replying you with a screenshot from GPT or - at least a bit of effor there - a copy/paste of the wall of text? no, people have no shame. they have a need for a l…
I raise an issue or PR after carefully reviewing someone else's open source code.
They ask Claude to answer me; neither them nor Claude understood the issue.
Well, at least it's their repo, they can do whatever.
The biggest surprise to me with all this low-quality contribution spam is how little shame people apparently have. I have a handful of open source contributions. All of them are for small-ish projects and the complexity of my contributions are in the same ball-park as what I work on day-to-day. And even though I am relatively confident in my competency as a developer, these contributions are probably the most thoroug…
The grift culture has changed that completely, now students face a lot of pressure to spam out PRs just to show they have contributed something.