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

281–290 of 329 posts

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

#281

Post by misnome »

mxschumacher wrote: post #228
joelreymont wrote: post #210

I'm the author of the PR. No, I'm not AI or bot, etc. Yes, my resume is genuine and is even more weird than what was listed (see https://joel.id/resume ). Oh, and I live in Kyiv. As for the PR itself, it was a PR stunt that I regret now as the code works and solves a real problem (at least for me!). I'll probably redo it, once I have spare Claude $$$ which I'm using for other projects now ( https://joel.id/build-your…

you are giving a new meaning to the term "PR stunt"

Or at least swapping out something else for the first two letters of "stunt"

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

#282

Post by arresin »

bakugo wrote: post #245
arresin wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Reddit link is from 18 years ago with people discussing almost the same thing. Damn.

The guy jokingly calling him a bot almost 2 decades ago is honestly hysterical. I wonder if he's aware of just how right he ended up being.

To be fair he’s a proper hard core programmer. I think he’s just gone too much into vibe coding.

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

#283

Post by pluc »

joelreymont wrote: post #251
pluc wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's doing it elsewhere too: https://github.com/rerun-io/rerun/pull/11900#issuecomment-35... https://github.com/ocaml/dune/issues/12731 https://github.com/tshort/StaticCompiler.jl/pull/180 Seems he's just on a rampage of "fixing" issues for trendy packages to get some attention.

I had $1000 in Claude credits to spend for the greater good.

You didn't

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

#284

Post by fransje26 »

raincole wrote: post #66
fzaninotto wrote: post #45

I've closed my share of AI-generated PRs on some OSS repositories I maintain. These contributors seem to jump from one project to another, until their contribution is accepted (recognized ?). I wonder how long the open-source ecosystem will be able to resist this wave. The burden of reviewing AI-generated PRs is already not sustainable for maintainers, and the number of real open-source contributors is decreasing. Si…

Open-source maintainers will resist this wave even just because they don't want to be mocked on HN/Reddit/their own forums. It's corporation software that we need to worry about.

> It's corporation software that we need to worry about.

That ship has sailed..

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

#285

Post by noitpmeder »

joelreymont wrote: post #256
aleph_minus_one wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Central to it being that you consider it unjust. I assume this is a correct characterization of how joelreymont feels about the fact that his PR was rejected.

It's not. It's absolutely justified for the OCaml maintainers to reject this PR. I feel completely different about my Zig PR [1] but, hey, it's not my playground and the Zig folks seem to be particularly opinionated. [1] https://ziggit.dev/t/bug-wrong-segment-ordering-for-macos-us...

It is truly unfortunate for you that your actions have probably tainted your future open source contributions for a long time.

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

#286

Post by kunley »

arresin wrote: post #282
bakugo wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The guy jokingly calling him a bot almost 2 decades ago is honestly hysterical. I wonder if he's aware of just how right he ended up being.

To be fair he’s a proper hard core programmer. I think he’s just gone too much into vibe coding.

He's real and his blogs on Haskell, Erlang and poker bots were discussed here, during HN's infancy, as well as on early reddit. (I just remember this name from those days).

Having said that, I don't understand why he insists on behaving the way he does now

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

#287

Post by losvedir »

joelreymont wrote: post #232
robertheadley wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why would you be unwilling to merge AI code at all? Consider my other PR against the Zig compiler [1]... I was careful to make it small and properly document it but there's a strict anti-AI policy for Zig and they closed the PR. Why? Is it not small? Not carefully documented? Is there no value it int? I'm not complaining or arguing for justice. I'm genuinely interested in how people think in this instance. If the sau…

Personally, I'm skeptical that it's a real bug, and that even if it is, that's the proper fix. For all I know, the LLM hallucinated the whole thing, terminal prompts, output, "fix" and all.

It takes time to review these things, and when you haven't shown yourself to be acting responsibly, there's no reason to give you the benefit of the doubt and spend time even checking if the damn alleged bug is real. It doesn't even link to an existing issue, which I'm pretty sure would exist for something as basic as this.

How do you know it's an issue? I think you're letting the always confident LLM trick you into thinking it's doing something real and useful.

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

#288

Post by SirHumphrey »

joelreymont wrote: post #242
ares623 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what’s stopping the author from maintaining their own fork i wonder?

I don't always use OCaml (meme coming in 1...2...3) and maintaining a fork is a significant undertaking. More importantly, being able to debug native OCaml binaries and actually see source code, values of variables, etc. is something that's useful to everyone. Looking at assembler instead of source code sucks unless you are reverse-engineering.

Why are you submitting a PR if you do not use the software? You could just as easily donate the money that you spent producing 13k LOC to the project and they would spend it to use Claud on things that need to be fixed or just pay themselves to fix things manually.

This way there were hours, kwh, and dollars wasted on something that will be of no use to anyone.

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

#289

Post by fatata123 »

joelreymont wrote: post #242
ares623 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what’s stopping the author from maintaining their own fork i wonder?

I don't always use OCaml (meme coming in 1...2...3) and maintaining a fork is a significant undertaking. More importantly, being able to debug native OCaml binaries and actually see source code, values of variables, etc. is something that's useful to everyone. Looking at assembler instead of source code sucks unless you are reverse-engineering.

[dead]

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

#290

Post by globnomulous »

joelreymont wrote: post #250
whilenot-dev wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would you be unwilling to merge AI code at all? Are you leaving the third-party aspect out of your question on purpose? Not GP but for me, it pretty much boils down to the comment from Mason[0]: "If I wanted an LLM to generate [...] unreviewed code [...], I could do it myself." To put it bluntly, everybody can generate code via LLMs and writing code isn't what defines the dominant work of an existing project an…

I'm strictly talking about the 10-line Zig PR above. Well-documented and tested.

It's worth asking yourself something: people have written substantial responses to your questions in this thread. Here you answered four paragraphs with two fucking lines referencing and repeating what you've already said. How do you expect someone to react? How can you expect anybody to take seriously anything you say, write, or commit when you obviously have so little ability, or willingness, to engage with others in a manner that shows respect and thought?

I really, truly don't understand. This isn't just about manners, mores, or self-reflection. The inability or unwillingness to think about your behavior or its likely reception are stupefying.

You need to stop 'contribiting' to public projects and stop talking to people in forums until you figure this stuff out.

Post reply on HN