271–280 of 472 posts
New policy boils down to "AI or not, it's still your code and you're responsible for it". I can get on board with that.
A good thing about the "you're the author regardless of the tool you used to produce the code" policy is that if a developer repeatedly submits poor quality AI generated code, one does not blame the model or the agent, one bans/terminates the developer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not convinced it blows up. It might also end up placing a larger burden on contributors, and especially first-time contributors, to provide concise, high-quality documentation that justifies their contribution. I'm thinking of something like: Explain, in at most 300 characters, why we should merge your change, or at least why we should invest the time to read a longer explanation (somethings things ARE complex).…
you know EXACTLY what would happen in such a system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A good thing about the "you're the author regardless of the tool you used to produce the code" policy is that if a developer repeatedly submits poor quality AI generated code, one does not blame the model or the agent, one bans/terminates the developer.
The issue that open source projects are facing at the moment is that it takes significantly less effort to submit a patch for review. A lot of developers who are submitting these AI patches don't necessarily understand the patch, so the onus is on the reviewer/code-owner. The reviewers are getting swamped (some reviewers are receiving 100s or patches per month). If feedback is provided at lot of the time the patch au…
Because if it's still a time saver, even with the increased review load, then it's a win, correct?
I'm not a coder so I have zero idea. Thoughts?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except LLMs actually are making programmers dumber. I personally know people, people whom I know for a fact were good programmers before, who have now completely stopped using their brains. When you ask them why they did something in the code, they say "I don't know, Claude did that and I didn't really question it". There was no such analogous phenomenon with IDEs.
You can just ask Claude why it did something in the code and it will tell you Programmers just moved up a level , not dumber, we are now managers of a team of 'agent' programmers. The deliverable is now a functionality instead of a specific block of code
Dementia patients also do this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A good thing about the "you're the author regardless of the tool you used to produce the code" policy is that if a developer repeatedly submits poor quality AI generated code, one does not blame the model or the agent, one bans/terminates the developer.
yeah, that's fair. Problem so far has been when poor developers send massive volume of slop for review. Takes time and effort to review or at least glance and test it, especially if developer hasn't bothered.
too many patches from unknown and untrusted contributors is a triage problem - telling a known and trusted contributor they can't use AI to help work on something just because other people are sending slop for review is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
New policy boils down to "AI or not, it's still your code and you're responsible for it". I can get on board with that.
This is the way it should've always been. I don't care what tool you use, but you'd better be ready to stand by and explain the results if necessary.
I'm not saying that anybody should be obligated to review large volumes of low confidence code... just that we should not make policies that ignore shades of gray which, with some collaboration, could bear fruit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Extremes on both sides. I'd wager were moving in Yegge's direction though, like it or not. > Though it's being argued that you could still be responsible for it without looking at it? If you have a much test coverage as SQLite, I'd be tempted to trust it, and I think that's where we are headed. Someone still needs to define these guardrails though, so IMO the developers job is just mutating into something else, but i…
For me, it’s not a question of whether I like it, nor where we might move in the future, but purely what is proven currently. In my experience, as in my evals, any model, including notably Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol can and indeed do produce code that does not consider many edge cases, can be hard to maintain (especially Sol though it’s output has become markedly better with recent changes to Codex) and sometimes introd…
You can still write non-performant code even with tests, but you can also test performance!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue that open source projects are facing at the moment is that it takes significantly less effort to submit a patch for review. A lot of developers who are submitting these AI patches don't necessarily understand the patch, so the onus is on the reviewer/code-owner. The reviewers are getting swamped (some reviewers are receiving 100s or patches per month). If feedback is provided at lot of the time the patch au…
The question becomes, does it take more time to create or review in the Grand scheme of the software life cycle? Because if it's still a time saver, even with the increased review load, then it's a win, correct? I'm not a coder so I have zero idea. Thoughts?
Good. AI is a game changer. It's like having an expert sitting next to you at all times. It's understandable why all these experts who want to gatekeep don't like AI, but ultimately, AI will win out, it's just too good.
The issue with AI is not its obvious value, it's our dependence on it. I worry what will happen to me when I am cut off for some reason. Local models are going to be really important and hopefully computing costs don't make it too prohibitive.
Sure, it means that selling intellectual labor is reaching the end of the line, and the value of learning will drop, but there's a lot more wealth that will be generated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody can take local models away from you, either
Yea, that's sorta my point. We're not, or at least I'm not to the point I have a local model as good as Opus yet though.
In any case you can say the exact same thing about reading. Take the book away and bam, you know nothing. A person who memorized the book is not dependent on an expensive, heavy thing like a book.