The sooner we all collectively realize that the commonly cited "reasons why LLM code is bad" and "reasons poorly architectured, poorly planned, poorly tested code is bad" are a circle on a Venn diagram, the sooner we can hopefully make some effort to escape this sports fan tribalistic nonsense.
Rsync and outrage
21–30 of 30 posts
Re: Rsync and outrage
#2211 hours since this has been posted and 20 comments. Nobody that's raging really cares about the reasoning. All that matters is: AI use spotted -> time for the warpath.
Re: Rsync and outrage
#23A bit of a mixed one here. The vibe coding got the project attention and it looks like he's going to get the help he needed. However the "outrage", if you even call it that, wasn't entirely misplaced when pretty basic bugs were introduced by this, such as: Can't use rsync with absolute paths: https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/issues/922 Links mode is broken: https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/issues/915 The sc…
>The vibe coding got the project attention and it looks like he's going to get the help he needed. I guess vibecoding certain software is now the new way of "instead of asking for help, write the wrong solution instead".
Not saying that's the case here, but in a way that's how it's always worked. Ask for help, get little to no response. But break something and people respond in a hurry, especially if it somehow affects them.
Re: Rsync and outrage
#24It's sad that the outrage posts got hundreds of comments while this article, from the maintainer explaining the CVEs and test suites, only has this singular comment and is already on the second page. A lie travels around the globe while the truth is putting on its shoes. Do better, HN.
Maybe because the explanation isn't so much an explanation but an admission that core functionality was broken in a minor version release - and therefore almost orthogonal to the use of AI. If there had been no major regressions, do you think anyone would have complained? People are (correctly) not going to be held to some kind of lower standard just because they "used AI" and "were fixing security issues".
>If there had been no major regressions, do you think anyone would have complained?
If there had been the same regressions but no AI, do you think there would be a 300 post issue full of people complaining? People are holding the update to a higher standard just because they used AI.
Re: Rsync and outrage
#25> for the people saying things like “I’m a PhD from xyz uni and I’m telling your LLMs are just stochastic tools that make everything up and the world will fall apart if you use them”, I’m here to tell you that you are out of date. The world of software engineering has changed dramatically in the last few months.
It indeed has. I now review code written by machines that sucks the life of me, read reports written by a machine, and overall have a miserable life as a software engineer. The pay is good so I'll keep on it for the time being, but you are damn right it changed, for the worse.
Re: Rsync and outrage
#2611 hours since this has been posted and 20 comments. Nobody that's raging really cares about the reasoning. All that matters is: AI use spotted -> time for the warpath.
> Marge, those people chased us with pitchforks and torches. TORCHES! At four in the afternoon!
Re: Rsync and outrage
#27> but I am being cautious, or as cautious as I can be given my desire to be sailing
Then step down as maintainer if you don't want to do it properly.
Re: Rsync and outrage
#28What I miss there is specifics about bugs. One side says: „oh there are new commits authored by Claude and I see new bugs. rsync is dooomed”, Andrew replies: „I’d better be sailing, but we’ve refactored test framework with Claude and I know how it works and I’ve been cautious.” It would be great to see analysis about those bugs. Why, how and when fix is expected. Only this part is important IMHO.
Re: Rsync and outrage
#29A bit of a mixed one here. The vibe coding got the project attention and it looks like he's going to get the help he needed. However the "outrage", if you even call it that, wasn't entirely misplaced when pretty basic bugs were introduced by this, such as: Can't use rsync with absolute paths: https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/issues/922 Links mode is broken: https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/issues/915 The sc…
It is entirely misplaced based on the evidence so far. Neither of the bugs you link are currently traced back to a commit that used AI.
But this one can: https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/issues/905 was caused by https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/commit/4fa7156ccdb2ad3... and I find it pretty absurd.
I don’t think AI assisted code is bad, but I really question tridge’s approach here. His post in response to to the dogpiling isn’t good (https://medium.com/@tridge60/rsync-and-outrage-d9849599e5a0). I appreciate his sense of duty to maintain rsync, but I get the very strong vibe from his response that he really doesn’t want to do this anymore and the use of AI is a way to make it easier on himself. He goes through some pretty lame arguments (aren’t humans just stochastic parrots‽ We don’t know!) and confesses he’d much rather stay retired and be sailing most of the time.
I think his heart is in the right place, but this is no longer a labor of love and it shows. Also, I think another point is that, given the criticality of rsync to so many businesses maybe they could fund development and maintenance of it? What a novel idea.
Re: Rsync and outrage
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is entirely misplaced based on the evidence so far. Neither of the bugs you link are currently traced back to a commit that used AI.
But this one can: https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/issues/905 was caused by https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/commit/4fa7156ccdb2ad3... and I find it pretty absurd. I don’t think AI assisted code is bad, but I really question tridge’s approach here. His post in response to to the dogpiling isn’t good ( https://medium.com/@tridge60/rsync-and-outrage-d9849599e5a0 ). I appreciate his sense of duty to maintain r…
I don't find this bug absurd. It affects linux kernels > the use of AI is a way to make it easier on himself.
I don't see what's wrong with either this or his response in that post.
> I don’t think AI assisted code is bad, but I really question tridge’s approach here.
What specifically is the part you're questioning?