511–520 of 534 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> given that 99.99% of software now includes AI-written code source?
[flagged]
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.
Any request that doesn't come with a promise of payment is panhandling. We have become so accustomed to overwhelming generosity and a cup that runeth over that instead of being grateful that our free hot soup comes a condo and a masseuse that we are spiteful when it isn't to our taste.
The random user should spend time analyzing the code because helping someone help you is part of the social contract that comes with having someone whose time would cost $400 - $1000 an hour as a contractor personally gift his time to you.
If ungrateful folks forget this we might find this resource increasingly scarce.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
We've banned this account for repeatedly posting abusive comments. We've asked you before to observe the guidelines, and the recent trend is getting much worse. When this happens we eventually have to assume you want to be banned. If you don't want to be banned, you can email us (hn@ycombinator.com) and commit to using HN as intended.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Similarly, a few years ago, I would've never expected "my magic code generation machine is doing all my work for me now, I don't even bother looking at what it does anymore!" to reach the Hacker News home page on a regular basis, either, yet here we are. Irrational actions lead to irrational reactions.
That’s not how LLMs are used by experienced engineers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I discuss with civilised people who are up for civilised discussions.
You are the one ruining this discussion, it's worrying that you don't even realize it. I pointed out that models change quite a bit over time (I said more than that) and you ridicule my reply. "Your fault. You should have used a model from 0.000005 seconds ago!" Civilised. Please.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are the one ruining this discussion, it's worrying that you don't even realize it. I pointed out that models change quite a bit over time (I said more than that) and you ridicule my reply. "Your fault. You should have used a model from 0.000005 seconds ago!" Civilised. Please.
Imagine not realizing that was a joke.
This is the third HN post I read on this topic. Everytime the same tweet (or whatever it's called for mastodon/bluesky/etc). Did anyone actually debug the issue? Was it caused by poorly generated code, or was it caused a genuine (security) fix that accidentally caused it (potentially even in a way a human would to)?
And yes, I debugged one of the issues. I made the second comment in one of them. Markus Mayer did some debugging, too.
Then I had to deal with something completely unrelated to computers for the rest of that day and several days thereafter, and came back to this.
The problem with compiling code that used new kernel features was a bit poorly done. Anyone with any experience knows that a simple #if defined(__linux__) , which is a platform test, does not cut it for feature testing. M. Mayer went with an autotools test, which is what I'd have done too.
The problem with the on-the-wire protocol is a tricky one, and caused by suddenly being conservative in what rsync accepts apparently without much testing of what out-of-range stuff in-the-wild rsync sends.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is rsync we are talking about. A bug in rsync basically means lost data and/or unreliable backups. I think it's normal to be pissed at lost data. Maybe it's not socially acceptable to spit in the face of a volunteer but it's 100% human to feel annoyed by an obvious drop in code quality.
The thing is, showing the annoyance to the volunteer, who is already doing their best, has two possible outcomes: 1) they stop volunteering 2) they will ignore you In neither of that is your issue solved. So maybe it's better to deal with the frustration on your own and then file a bug report.