151–160 of 161 posts
This is a problem everywhere now, and not just in code. It now takes zero effort to produce something, whether code or a work plan or “deep research” and then lob it over the fence, expecting people to review and act upon it. It’s an extension of the asymmetric bullshit principle IMO, and I think now all workplaces / projects need norms about this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is a problem everywhere now, and not just in code. It now takes zero effort to produce something, whether code or a work plan or “deep research” and then lob it over the fence, expecting people to review and act upon it. Where is the problem? If I don't have the time to review a PR, I simply reject it. Or if I am flooded in PRs, I only take those from people from which I know that their PRs are of high quality…
You're still getting DDoSed. If you only accept PRs from pre-vetted people you'll inevitably be left with zero contributors: people naturally leave over time, so in order to maintain a healthy ecosystem you need to accept some newcomers. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the intelligence of every other person alien to ourselves? The article ends with a need to "protect our own engineering brands" but how is that communicated? I found this [ https://meta.discourse.org/t/contributing-to-discourse-devel... ] which seems woefully inadequate. In practice, conventions are communicated through existing code. Are human contributors capable of grasping an "engineering brand" by working…
> Isn't the intelligence of every other person alien to ourselves? If we agree that we are all humans and assume that all the other humans are conscious as one is, I think we can extrapolate that there is generic "human intelligence" concept. Even if it's pretty hard do nail it down, and even if there are several definitions of human intelligence out there. For the other part of the comment, not too familiar with Dis…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This problem statement was actually where the idea for Proof of Work (aka mining) in bitcoin came from. It evolved out of the idea of requiring a computational proof of work for sending an email via cypherpunk remailers as a way of fighting spam. The idea being only a legitimate or determined sender would put in the "proof of work" to use the remailer. I wonder how it would look if open source projects required $5 to…
The parallel between PoW and barriers to entry many communities (be it Wikipedia editors or open-source contributors) use to sustain themselves seems apt. Unfortunately, there is no community equivalent of PoS—the only alternative is introducing different barriers, like ID verification, payment, in-person interviews, private invite system, etc., which often conflict with the nature of anonymous volunteer communities.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My opinion swings between hype to hate every day. Yesterday all suggestions / edits / answers were hallucinated garbage, and I was ready to remove the copilot plugin altogether. Today I was stuck at a really annoying problem for hours and hours. For shits and giggles I just gave Claude a stacktrace and a description and let it go ham. It produced an amazingly accurate thought train and found my issue, which was not w…
Well part of your problem is you are still using copilot. Its fully outdated compared to claude/codex. This tech moves fast.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My opinion swings between hype to hate every day. Yesterday all suggestions / edits / answers were hallucinated garbage, and I was ready to remove the copilot plugin altogether. Today I was stuck at a really annoying problem for hours and hours. For shits and giggles I just gave Claude a stacktrace and a description and let it go ham. It produced an amazingly accurate thought train and found my issue, which was not w…
Well part of your problem is you are still using copilot. Its fully outdated compared to claude/codex. This tech moves fast.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The parallel between PoW and barriers to entry many communities (be it Wikipedia editors or open-source contributors) use to sustain themselves seems apt. Unfortunately, there is no community equivalent of PoS—the only alternative is introducing different barriers, like ID verification, payment, in-person interviews, private invite system, etc., which often conflict with the nature of anonymous volunteer communities.…
The community equivalent of Proof of Stake is reputation. You can't do anything until you've shown up for awhile and contributed in small ways, you gradually gain the ability to contribute in bigger ways, and if you are discovered to be malicious or corrupt or toxic, then your rights are revoked. The people who've gained this trust are presumably motivated to maintain it (although there's always the risk they sell th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well part of your problem is you are still using copilot. Its fully outdated compared to claude/codex. This tech moves fast.
Well, I gotta use whatever my organization whitelists and provides me a license for. I do use Claude models inside copilot (for Ask/Edit/Agent mode).
Anyone else feel like we're cresting the LLM coding hype curve? Like a recognition that there's value there, but we're passing the frothing-at-the-mouth stage of replacing all software engineers?
I feel like we need a different programming paradigm that's more suited to LLM's strengths; that enables a new kind of application. IE, think of an application that's more analog with higher tolerances of different kinds of user inputs. A different way to say it. Imagine if programming a computer was more like training a child or a teenager to perform a task that requires a lot of human interaction; and that interact…
https://discuss.samsaffron.com/t/your-vibe-coded-slop-pr-is-...