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

Please Do Not Vibe Fuck Up This Software

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 534 posts

Re: Please Do Not Vibe Fuck Up This Software

#411

Post by hashmap »

senordevnyc wrote: post #404
hashmap wrote: post #296

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…

Thank you for aptly demonstrating the exact kind of hysteria and mob mentality they're describing.

i am correcting the description of what is going on. that is not hysteria and i am not a mob.

Re: Please Do Not Vibe Fuck Up This Software

#412

Post by hashmap »

soerxpso wrote: post #373
hashmap wrote: post #296

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…

If you think you're owed a salary to do something that a simple machine can do, I have a field for you to plow by hand.

whether or not you think anyone is owed anything for anything is a completely different topic. i'm talking about what is happening right in front of you, and everywhere.

Re: Please Do Not Vibe Fuck Up This Software

#413

Post by overfeed »

Lerc wrote: post #338
overfeed wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...if it had been thoroughly tested was shown to have certain regressions but no worse security regressions? You'd have to test to know this, and there is no evidence that tridge did this regression testing - or ask Claude to find possible regressions caused by proposed changes. If tridge did test for regressions, but chose not to document the regression, then it's still negligence, regardless of the tools pr proce…

Are you saying that it is irresponsible to test for regressions and to not document the ones you didn't find or that you think it is reasonable to expect regression tests for every possible regression?

No, I did not say any of that.

Re: Please Do Not Vibe Fuck Up This Software

#414

Post by weiliddat »

rf15 wrote: post #382
weiliddat wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how to interpret your comment. It could be - a response to my comment saying that I am "illiterate" and cannot differentiate LLM output vs actual human comments (in that case I'm not sure what you're adding to the discussion here beyond a personal attack) - a general comment saying it's getting harder for people in a position similar to us (i.e. tech / tech-adjacent who interact a lot with others who wri…

It was a general comment. Sorry for being unclear. I'm very bothered by hearing this exact thing a lot lately. It's something I'm racking my brains over, how some people can tell certain things and intentions apart and others cannot - and how that set is different for everyone, and how this "flaw" is currently causing a lot of trouble because we, collectively, are not very well practiced in detecting this kind of thi…

No harm done, glad I clarified.

I'm generally an optimistic person and very trusting of others. I'd say I'm also a pretty good reader of intentions / listener based on people who are my friends / worked with me (anecdotal of course, take it how you will).

However, some of the comments in the GitHub issue... I can only assume the worst of intentions to ruin any/all motivation of the maintainer. Given we've seen social engineering and other attacks on other open source projects with increasing frequency, I can only assume that there are ulterior motives in such comments.

I cannot otherwise see how those comments would be constructive towards the maintainer or the other participants in the issue.

Re: Please Do Not Vibe Fuck Up This Software

#415

Post by akerl_ »

pishpash wrote: post #408
akerl_ wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you may be confusing popularity with existence. The thing that makes a project die is if the maintainers all leave. Users don’t make a project exist. They make it popular. If the user community all up and left, rsync would still exist and continue as long as its maintainers choose to work on it. By contrast, if all the maintainers leave because they’re tired of dealing with assholes, the project dies.

By that account an open source project never dies because the code is there for anyone to improve upon. Why does anyone care if one particular repo realization of some useful idea or its maintainers are around or not? It's quite some value judgment and worldview to divide open source into autistic maintainers who do even if no one uses and asshole users who do not and cannot do.

Woof. I think we’re just not going to agree.

Re: Please Do Not Vibe Fuck Up This Software

#416

Post by pojzon »

ShinyLeftPad wrote: post #238
Quarrel wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But DID anything change? Of course I know that some people can just becoming psychotic out of nowhere. But why would I assume it?

Do you think LLM use is evidence of psychosis? I think it's a widespread problem but probably not psychosis.

At least once a week we have a post on HN about CEOs having AI paychosis. Maybe there is something to it.

Re: Please Do Not Vibe Fuck Up This Software

#417

Post by LtWorf »

michaelmrose wrote: post #290
nottorp wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nothing but dripping contempt for their betters. ... and that's how to lose credibility.

They don't make anything and they shit talk those who do

They shit talk those who also don't make but use AI to destroy.

Re: Please Do Not Vibe Fuck Up This Software

#418

Post by cinntaile »

customguy wrote: post #375
cinntaile wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Change happens fast, a year old model is pretty outdated. What change? That you should not fake the results of a test because that defeats the whole purpose of a test has been known before there were computers.

I don't know, the weather?

Re: Please Do Not Vibe Fuck Up This Software

#419

Post by cinntaile »

LtWorf wrote: post #334
yw3410 wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Happened to me, 3 days ago - deleted some tests and flipped assertions after outlining that it wasn't to change any assertions. 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.

> 3 days ago Your fault. You should have used a model from 0.000005 seconds ago!

Reading is difficult.

Re: Please Do Not Vibe Fuck Up This Software

#420

Post by LtWorf »

pacifika wrote: post #246
comrade1234 wrote: post #193

I'm pretty dependent on rsync across all of my ubuntu servers. I just checked and most of my servers are on openrsync but one, built most recently, is on classic rsync. Not sure why the old servers are openrsync and the new one on classic rsync - I would expect the opposite. Anyway, on that one server: sudo apt-mark hold rsync

You rather open the server up to security issues than have software where the developer has been assisted by ai which you feel decreases the quality of the code or is it for moral reasons? Rsync is not being vibe coded, and it’s not become slop so would love to understand the position.

The integrity of the backups seems uncertain at this point.

A backup tool that doesn't do backups properly is less useful than one with a CVE that might be exploited if the stars align.

Post reply on HN