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

Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

alexispurslane.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 611 posts

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#591

Post by 0123456789ABCDE »

wang_li wrote: post #585
0123456789ABCDE wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

full-disclosure: i skimmed the wiki on reliance damages , and concluded you're wrong. it goes something like this: reliance damages require you produce a contract, or some other evidence, that demonstrates you were promised some thing you did not receive, or some outcome you didn't experience. essentially, your claim is: a README file has more standing, in a court of law, than the LICENSE file sitting next to it at t…

A license is not a contract. It's a grant of permissions from an owner to a recipient that details what they can and cannot do. A license can be part of a transaction, but it does not constitute a contract. Especially in the case of free software where there is no exchange of considerations. Regardless, contracts are not required for reliance interest to apply.

> A license is not a contract.

you're right, in case law exchange of considerations matters, and licenses are treated as rights grants. however, civil law does not care about considerations, and use of the object implies consent.

but that is irrelevant to our thread, because whether you breach the terms of the contract, or violate the terms of the rights grant, the different legal systems seem to have arrived at the same conclusion: it is copyright infringement

> Regardless, contracts are not required for reliance interest to apply.

was hoping that including "some other evidence" would be enough to avoid that comment

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#592

Post by drankinatty »

I've got no love for AI, don't use it, but also after writing code for more than 40 years, keeping things in perspective helps. Whether it's you pecking away or some coding assistant helping, there will always be the potential for a regression or two to fly under the radar. (not like I've never done that before... nope.)

The issue the coding tools like Claude present is the sheer size and scope of changes and commits they generate that would take mere mortals months of careful coding to do.

That's an issue everyone using those tools will have to confront. I don't know Andrew personally, from a "let's go have a beer" standpoint, but I've known him from the samba list and his work with rsync for a very long time.

My take on the issue is less about the regressions and Claude screw-ups and more the lesson to all about the reliability of the coding tools and the diligence required to validate what they spit out.

It's an unfortunate black-eye, no doubt, but it's not a unique one. The takeaway is if something like this can slip by somebody like Andrew, then we all need to redouble the validation effort, lest we too are destined to share an unfortunate black-eye or two.

Never forget, "to err is human, but to really foul things up requires a computer."

AI just applies that adage at industrial-scale.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#593

Post by PunchyHamster »

logicprog wrote: post #166
PunchyHamster wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's start with most outright alarming error - the claude statistics are taken out of whole 2 data points

That's sort of the point. There isn't enough data to extrapolate, and yet that's exactly what those outraged about AI were doing, and when you do do the very minimal types of analyses (permutation tests, and looking at distributions, mostly) that are actually valid, safe, standard, and useful to do on such low amounts of date, again, no evidence for the outrage shows up, and the two releases look so normal that it so…

you could've literally just waited few more releases, but no, have to catch the hype wave before news are cold

> that are actually valid, safe, standard, and useful to do on such low amounts of date,

if you presented paper with that amount of data points you'd be laughed out of the room

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#594

Post by imurray »

imurray wrote: post #38
gadrev wrote: post #29

Ok. $ apt-cache policy rsync | grep Installed Installed: 3.4.1+ds1-7ubuntu0.2 $ sudo apt-mark hold rsync rsync set on hold.

That version has security fixes from the same day as the latest rsync release: https://ubuntu.com/security/notices/USN-8283-1 As usual, Ubuntu backported fixes and didn't upgrade to a new version. Whether or not they also backported regressions in edge cases that afflict the latest rsync, I don't know. Pinning the Ubuntu package may prevent getting further regressions, but is preventing you getting any future such ba…

The Ubuntu backport did include regressions that an Ubuntu update a couple of days later addresses: https://ubuntu.com/security/notices/USN-8349-2

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#595

Post by ch_fr »

pie_flavor wrote: post #577
ch_fr wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You keep trying to twist what I'm saying into "guys you have to be nice to the ai haters and meet them at the middle, even when they insult you :))))". Once again you have this kneejerk reaction to the words "emotions" and "feelings" as if it would make you weak to acknowledge that "humans feeling a certain way act a certain way". I'll once again have to remind you that all of what I said was just "yeah these guys ar…

I don't think any of this relates to the post it's replying to. I appreciate the totally failed attempt to psychoanalyze my emotions, though. If you think I'm 'confused, surprised, and angry', you don't seem to be as good at the emotions thing as you keep acting like you are.

But it does relate, dunno what to tell you. You think it doesn't relate because your reasoning stops at "they're not right so there is literally nothing else that's relevant about any of this", and what I'm saying to OP is "they're not right, and here's why those people would go around being wrong on the internet, and why a big (statistically insignificant) debunk will mostly just be you preaching to the choir", I'm steering the conversation that way because I felt it would be more productive.

There's nothing more I can say that I haven't already said at this point, understanding that people have emotions (and once again, understanding!= agreement) literally has no downside for you when looking at any kind of discourse.

Call me preachy or whatever, I'm just trying to find a topic of discussion that's not just the usual yelling past eachother: "Large providers have ROI!!" vs "Large providers are in the red!!", not opening that can of worm.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#596

Post by rickydroll »

Laurel1234 wrote: post #590
rickydroll wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If corporations can be people, there is no reason why AI can't be considered a person.

It takes something far more hollow and soulless even than a clanker to type a thing like this.

Beep boop. It comes from recognizing that, yet again, humans are way too full of themselves and are not as unique as they think they are.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#597

Post by advael »

rickydroll wrote: post #574
noddybear wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody human considers a corporation to be a person. It is merely a legal expedient.

I used to think that until I did a little digging into it. Specifically, corporations are considered legal persons because they are separate legal entities, thereby creating a wall between your personal affairs and your business. It protects your personal assets from any liabilities, debts, or lawsuits. Also, since it's a separate entity, its lifetime is not tied to the owner. So if the owner dies, their shares are i…

I'm confused about why you believe this contrasts with what the above poster said. You've described a bunch of practical reasons why this is legally expedient and also at least one that seems to contrast with your own concept of personhood

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#598

Post by advael »

RustyRussell wrote: post #258

For those commenting, I suggest you read the post linked by the rsync author: https://medium.com/@tridge60/rsync-and-outrage-d9849599e5a0 (Disclosure: while I haven't talked with him in years, Tridge was my colleague and mentor for many years. I feel it is worth considering his view before joining a crusade)

I get that there's a lot of loud nonsense flying around about AI, both positive and negative, and I echo the sentiment that people should have some damn perspective when talking to FOSS maintainers, but I think writing a bunch of AI-assisted code that causes regressions and then responding to that by throwing out a strawman about how critics (with PhDs no less!) are telling him these things can't do anything at all and can't possibly understand how literally everything has fundamentally changed in the last few months sounds way more like a guy who has a motivated (and understandable - he's retired ffs) reason to... a little bit buy into the hype

I think he makes a lot of good points here, but also think that kind of statement is unlikely to assuage the real concerns of people using the software. I think people are more likely to fork rsync now rather than rely on a more diverged earlier alternative implementation though

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#599

Post by rickydroll »

advael wrote: post #597
rickydroll wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to think that until I did a little digging into it. Specifically, corporations are considered legal persons because they are separate legal entities, thereby creating a wall between your personal affairs and your business. It protects your personal assets from any liabilities, debts, or lawsuits. Also, since it's a separate entity, its lifetime is not tied to the owner. So if the owner dies, their shares are i…

I'm confused about why you believe this contrasts with what the above poster said. You've described a bunch of practical reasons why this is legally expedient and also at least one that seems to contrast with your own concept of personhood

Yes, it does conflict with my own concept of personhood. I forgot to add that to my comment.

I was trying to show that it is not "merely a legal expedient", that corporate personhood had a specific purpose, and that it differed from a real person. I think that the confusion about legal personhood in corporations comes from how lawyers explain its existence. A couple of lawyers I've had explained it as, it's just like a person in the law, except where it's different.

The problem is that we haven't created a clear enough distinction between a natural person and a legal person. In many cases, corporations have rights but not the responsibility. For example, they have speech rights, but they don't go to jail when the corporation commits a crime. The judicial inequalities between ordinary people and rich people are even greater between natural persons and corporations.

Re: Did Claude increase bugs in rsync?

#600

Post by advael »

rickydroll wrote: post #599
advael wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused about why you believe this contrasts with what the above poster said. You've described a bunch of practical reasons why this is legally expedient and also at least one that seems to contrast with your own concept of personhood

Yes, it does conflict with my own concept of personhood. I forgot to add that to my comment. I was trying to show that it is not "merely a legal expedient", that corporate personhood had a specific purpose, and that it differed from a real person. I think that the confusion about legal personhood in corporations comes from how lawyers explain its existence. A couple of lawyers I've had explained it as, it's just like…

Yea, I mean, I think the reason people balk at corporate personhood are to do with both the iniquities committed by corporate actors and the fact that personhood is a really confusing model for all this

A model that treats what effectively amounts to a body of assets united by a charter as equivalent to a person - except when it isn't - is inherently confusing because these are not at all similar kinds of entities. While it's clear that this model has a purpose, I think people are right to point out that the equivalence is drawn by rather stilted logic and even more right to question whether the consequences of this legal framing are desirable from their perspective

Post reply on HN