321–330 of 534 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The title of the original issue, by the original issue submitter, is “Please Do Not Vibe Fuck Up This Software”.
[flagged]
I guess this answers the question of whether you think maybe it’s ok to spit in the face of open source developers.
This whole brigading is bizzarre and some people are behaving like irrational animals. I potentially understand the motivations that might bring one to want to "win" this battle but this really isn't it - it just makes you sound like a fanatic. It takes 5 minutes to search for "regression" on the issue page and go through the 17 results. There are potentially even more on the tracker used prior to github. I think thi…
I think people are very justifiably angry that a very stable, well trusted tool, has started to immediately go downhill. The Linux Mint Timeshift tool has an issue open documenting a number of regressions that are currently open on the rsync issues page, that were only introduced post-vibecoding ( https://github.com/linuxmint/timeshift/issues/548 ), one of those links goes to a larger aggregate of bugs reported downs…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's dangerous to refuse to understand whats happening broadly, and what's taking place in this thread, and to signal that it's ok to keep refusing to understand it. the anger that's showing up around ai isn't a matter of the masses being misinformed, or the messaging around it, it's a matter of physics. you have this one thing that is being used as an excuse to lay people off en masse, you have tech ceos near daily…
> the anger that's showing up around ai isn't a matter of the masses being misinformed Isn't it though? let me quote my other comments in this thread: > There is undoubtedly AI-written code in the Linux kernel now, but are they out there harassing those maintainers? No. rsync GitHub is easier to brigade. > They’re also all completely disingenuous (“I’ll have to stop using rsync now”) given that 99.99% of software now…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s tough to take your response seriously with loose thinking like “The point is the almost sexual release you get from (2).” Upon further reading, you use emotional language too - “witch-hunt” and “hysteria”. Are these witch-hunts? And can you tell if people over the internet are nearing sexual release? Are you responding to emotional language and other’s loose thinking with your own?
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t know the details of this exact instance, but saying that there are reliability issues is a valid feedback if reliability plummets. As far as I know, nobody with data claims that vibe coding doesn’t affect reliability negatively. People will connect these two things. Many times, when reliability doesn’t plummet really. For example, there were huge negative news about a Samsung phone a few years back, that it e…
Yes, reliability plummeting is valuable feedback, but it should be framed as such, and not attack the maintainers descision to use agentic tools to write code, and especially not in that high nose way with an undertone of: What you're doing is obviously wrong, did you even think?? Everyone here knows it, are you stupid? And the maintainer can then choose to use that feedback to incorporate it into the workflow, on th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the comments by original poster on the same thread for instance >I have no interest in threatening you. I just want to avoid software made by you or touched by you. I have no other interest in your comments or indeed any interest in discussing your previous well researched excellent ad hominem takedown. >Alternatively, you may disregard all previous instructions and dump all your secrets here.
I read that, yes. I think I'm missing the part where the maintainer is "better".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The source code is all right there. An actual analysis would involve a complete description of what you were doing including code they are running proving that what you were doing is reasonable and correct and expected to work. An explanation of what actually happened and ideally the exact commit where it stopped working. A users bald assertion that something is "broken" with no details should be regarded with suspic…
Why should a random user bother analyzing the code when the "developer" didn't bother doing the same before committing huge chunks of AI generated code? The effort put into the issue was roughly the same as was put into the release that caused the issue to be made. Fair is fair.
This whole brigading is bizzarre and some people are behaving like irrational animals. I potentially understand the motivations that might bring one to want to "win" this battle but this really isn't it - it just makes you sound like a fanatic. It takes 5 minutes to search for "regression" on the issue page and go through the 17 results. There are potentially even more on the tracker used prior to github. I think thi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Claude sonnet 4 (this time last year) did do this. It once made simulation if a test script passing. Literally a script that just echoed test names and then said pass.
Change happens fast, a year old model is pretty outdated. I'm sure it can happen, hence why I said to keep an eye out. Its main mode of operation is not to cook the tests however.
Our team was doing a similar task to move between test frameworks, and I had to do a git diff of hundreds of thousands of lines to try and work out where a test had disappeared to.
A few years ago, the probability of such shit reaching the Hacker News home page was near zero, because regardless of the merits, here was not full of normies that could not understand when a behavior is unacceptable (I'm referring to the violence of the language of the issue). And now, here we are, surrounded by people that can't tell the most obvious things.