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

171–180 of 329 posts

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

#171

Post by sph »

bsder wrote: post #9

Can we please go back to "You have to make an account on our server to contribute or pull from the git?" One of the biggest problems is the fact that the public nature of Github means that fixes are worth "Faux Internet Points" and a bunch of doofuses at companies like Google made "social contribution" part of the dumbass employee evaluation process. Forcing a person to sign up would at least stop people who need "Fa…

I am strongly considering abandoning Github for tarball + email to send git patches to.

No centralisation of my code in siloes like Github, I won't have to care about bots making hundreds of requests on my self-hosted Gitea instance, would prove to be a noticeable source of friction to vibe coders, and I don't care about receiving tons of external contributions from whomever.

For serious people, it'll only be a matter of running `git format-patch` and sending me an attachment via email.

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

#172

Post by phendrenad2 »

yodsanklai wrote: post #170
benterix wrote: post #62

Did these Ocaml maintainers undergo some special course for dealing with difficult people? They show enormous amounts of maturity and patience. I'd just give the offender Torvalds' treatment and block them from the repo, case closed.

In my big tech company, you don't want to be dismissive of AI if you don't want to sound like a paria. It's hard to believe how much faith leadership has in AI. They really want every engineer to use AI as much as possible. Reviewing is increasingly done by AI as well. That being said, I don't think that's why reviewers here were so cordial, but this is the tone you'd expect in the corporate world.

This is a good point. There's a lot of cheering for the Linus swearing style, but if the average developer did that they'd eventually get a talking-to by HR.

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

#173

Post by phendrenad2 »

bfkwlfkjf wrote: post #160
kylereeve wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a very short list of people who can get away with "Classic Torvalds"

In fact, anyone can get away with it. What are they going to do, call the police because you called them a moron?

Consider the facts: (1) most open-source maintainers have a real job (2) an unwritten rule of corporate culture is "(appear) nice" (see all of the "corporate speak" memes about how "per my last email" means "fuck off") (3) these developers may eventually need a job at another company (4) their "moron" comment is going to live forever on the internet...

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

#174

Post by phendrenad2 »

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...

This reminds me of the "good developers must be good at thinking at multiple levels of abstraction at the same time" quote. The things you notice about these AI kids is they didn't even do the bare minimum to reason about their PR from multiple angles. __Of course__ someone is going to ask why the copyright is there. Better have a good answer, or - locked, come back when you do. Really that simple.

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

#176

Post by phendrenad2 »

I'd be interested to see how AI code review would do with this PR. This would be a great test to see if AI code review can properly identify the concerns that the humans have here (way too much code, PR creator can't answer basic questions about it, strange copyright header mentioning someone unrelated, etc.) I'll bet AI code review would fail miserably, only focusing on how the PR is formatted and if it "looks" like a typical PR (which, was also the AI's goal when creating it).

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

#177

Post by meheleventyone »

menaerus wrote: post #162
nsagent wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's clear Claude adapted code directly from the OxCaml implementation (the PR author said he pointed Claude at that code [1] and then provides a ChatGPT analysis [2] that really highlights the plagiarism, but ultimately comes to the conclusion that it isn't plagiarized). Either that highlights someone who is incompetent or they are willfully being blasé. Neither bodes well for contributing code while respecting copy…

Sorry, this is just ridicilous and shows how people fragile really are. This whole topic and whole MR as well. I am routinely looking into the folly implementation, sometimes into the libstdc++, sometimes into libc++, sometimes into boost or abseil etc. to find inspiration for problems that I tackle in other codebases. By the same standards, this should also be plagiarism, no? I manufacture new ideas by compiling exi…

Perhaps because the AI assigned copyright in the files to the author of the library it copied from and the person prompting it told it to look at that library. Without even getting into the comedy AI generated apologia to go with it which makes it look worse rather than better.

From a pragmatic viewpoint as an engineer you assign the IP you create over to the company you work for so plagarism has real world potential to lose you your job at best. There's a difference between taking inspiration from something unrelated "oh this is a neat algorithmic approach to solving this class of problems" to "I need to implement this specific feature and it exists in this library so I'll lift it nearly verbatim".

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

#178

Post by tetris11 »

a57721 wrote: post #159
tetris11 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think he's dense, I think he's just a high level troll

It looks like a parody of LLM delusion, but the PR is oddly specific to be just trolling, and the author also submitted his work to HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45982416

oof.

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

#179

Post by menaerus »

meheleventyone wrote: post #177
menaerus wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, this is just ridicilous and shows how people fragile really are. This whole topic and whole MR as well. I am routinely looking into the folly implementation, sometimes into the libstdc++, sometimes into libc++, sometimes into boost or abseil etc. to find inspiration for problems that I tackle in other codebases. By the same standards, this should also be plagiarism, no? I manufacture new ideas by compiling exi…

Perhaps because the AI assigned copyright in the files to the author of the library it copied from and the person prompting it told it to look at that library. Without even getting into the comedy AI generated apologia to go with it which makes it look worse rather than better. From a pragmatic viewpoint as an engineer you assign the IP you create over to the company you work for so plagarism has real world potential…

Can you give an example what exactly was copied? I ask because I took a look into MR and original repo, and the conclusion is that the tool only copy-pasted the copyright header but not the code. So I am still wondering - what's wrong with that (it's a silly mistake even a human can make), and where is the copyright infringement everyone is talking about?

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

#180

Post by robertheadley »

yodsanklai wrote: post #170
benterix wrote: post #62

Did these Ocaml maintainers undergo some special course for dealing with difficult people? They show enormous amounts of maturity and patience. I'd just give the offender Torvalds' treatment and block them from the repo, case closed.

In my big tech company, you don't want to be dismissive of AI if you don't want to sound like a paria. It's hard to believe how much faith leadership has in AI. They really want every engineer to use AI as much as possible. Reviewing is increasingly done by AI as well. That being said, I don't think that's why reviewers here were so cordial, but this is the tone you'd expect in the corporate world.

I wouldn't say they were dismissive of AI, just that they are unwilling to merge code that they don't have the time or motivation to review.

If you want AI code merged, make it small so it it's an easy review.

That being said, I completely understand being unwilling to merge AI code at all.

Post reply on HN