Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI Lazyslop and Personal Responsibility

danielsada.tech

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 75 posts

Re: AI Lazyslop and Personal Responsibility

#31

Post by lo_zamoyski »

OptionOfT wrote: post #20
dmmartins wrote: post #15

> What was your thought process using AI? > Share your prompts! Share your process! It helps me understand your rationale. why? does it matter? do you ask the same questions for people that don't use AI? I don't like using AI for code because I don't like the code it generates and having to go over and over until I like it, but I don't care how people write code. I review the code that's on the PR and if there's I do…

Because when your code is handwritten, it's supposed to be a translation of you parsing business requirements to code. Using AI adds a non-deterministic layer in between, and a lot of code now is there that you probably didn't need. The prompt is helpful to figure out what is needed and what isn't.

The correct thing to do is to annotate the code and the PR with comments. You shouldn't be submitting code you don't understand in the first place. These comments will contain the reasoning in the prompts. Giving me a list of prompts would just be annoying and messy, not informative.

Also, we should not be submitting huge PRs in general. It is difficult to be thorough in such cases. Changes will be less well understood and more bugs will sneak their way into the code base.

Re: AI Lazyslop and Personal Responsibility

#32

Post by shimman »

dgxyz wrote: post #7
throwawaysleep wrote: post #3

> Then, I’d get a ping from his manager asking on why am I blocking the review. If you are in a culture like this, you may as well just ship slop. Management wants to break stuff, that is on them.

I paid my mortgage off by being the insurance policy when that happens.

How does that work? I find the ability to be in these positions as an IC really impossible nowadays. Maybe it was easier in the 90s? I heard contracting was a way better gig back then too, until corpos got all high and mighty about it putting an end to the practice by favoring head shops instead.

Re: AI Lazyslop and Personal Responsibility

#34

Post by zahlman »

dkarl wrote: post #11

I have no idea what AI changes about this scenario. It's the same scenario as when Mike did this with 1600 lines of his own code ten years ago; it just happens more often, since Mike comes up with 1600 lines of code in a day instead of in a sprint. > I don’t blame Mike, I blame the system that forced him to do this. Bending over backwards not to be the meanie is pointless. You're trying to stop him because the system…

> it just happens more often

Which is extremely relevant, as it dramatically increases the probability that other people will have to care about it.

Re: AI Lazyslop and Personal Responsibility

#35

Post by emeraldd »

xyzsparetimexyz wrote: post #2

If you get a 1600 line PR you just close it and ask them to break it up into reviewable chunks. If your workplace has an issue with that, quit. This was true before AI and will be true after AI.

There are a number of cases where this is not really possible. For some classes of updates, the structure of the underlying application and the type of update being made requires that you do an "all or nothing" type of update in order to get a buildable result. I've run into this a lot with Large Java applications where we have to jump several Spring versions just due to the scope of what's being updated. More incremental updates weren't an option for a number of time/architectural reasons and refactoring the application structure (which really wouldn't have helped too much either) would have been time and cost prohibitive... Really annoying but sometimes you just don't have another option to actually accomplish your goals.

Re: AI Lazyslop and Personal Responsibility

#36

Post by babblingfish »

This is consistent with my own observations of LLM-generated code increasing the burden on reviewers. You either review the code carefully, putting more effort into it than the actual original author. Or you approve it without careful review. I feel like the latter is becoming more common. This is basically creating tech debt that will only be realized later by future maintainers

Re: AI Lazyslop and Personal Responsibility

#37

Post by solomonb »

> After I “Requested changes” he’d get frustrated that I’d do that, and put all his changes in an already approved PR and sneak merge it in another PR.

This is outrageous regardless of AI. Clearly there are process and technical barriers that failed in order to even make this possible. How does one commit a huge chunk of new code to an approved PR and not trigger a re-review?

But more importantly, in what world does a human think it is okay to be sneaky like this? Being able to communicate and trust one another is essential to the large scale collaboration we participate in as professional engineers. Violating that trust erodes all ability to maintain an effective team.

Re: AI Lazyslop and Personal Responsibility

#38

Post by ghm2199 »

If you work in a company where some kind of testing is optional to get your PR merged, run in the opposite direction. Because testing showed you your engineer _thought_ things through. Its communicating what the intended use and many times when well written is as clarifying as documentation. I would be even willing to accept integration/manual tests if writing unit tests is sometimes not possible.

Re: AI Lazyslop and Personal Responsibility

#39

Post by serial_dev »

> put all his changes in an already approved PR and sneak merge it in another PR. I don’t blame Mike, I blame the system that forced him to do this.

Oh you should definitely blame Mike for this. It’s like blaming the system when someone in the kitchen spits in the food of customer. Working with people like this is horrible because you know they don’t mind to lie cheat deceive.

Re: AI Lazyslop and Personal Responsibility

#40

Post by wasmainiac »

solomonb wrote: post #37

> After I “Requested changes” he’d get frustrated that I’d do that, and put all his changes in an already approved PR and sneak merge it in another PR. This is outrageous regardless of AI. Clearly there are process and technical barriers that failed in order to even make this possible. How does one commit a huge chunk of new code to an approved PR and not trigger a re-review? But more importantly, in what world does…

Yeah this never happened. This just sounds like an and everyone clapped moments, made to make a blog post. Most people on this planet are reasonable if not pushed.
Post reply on HN