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

AI documentation you can talk to, for every repo

deepwiki.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 132 posts

Re: AI documentation you can talk to, for every repo

#71

Post by naveen99 »

andybak wrote: post #44
blopker wrote: post #16

I took a look at a project I maintain[0], and wow. It's so wrong in every section I saw. The generated diagrams make no sense. The text sections take implementation details that don't matter and present them to the user like they need to know them. It's also outdated. I hope actual users never see this. I dread thinking about having to go around to various LLM generated sites to correct documentation I never approved…

I just tried it on several of my repos and I was rather impressed. This is another one of those bizarre situations that keeps happening in AI coding related matters where people can look at the same thing and reach diametrically opposed conclusions. It's very peculiar and I've never experienced anything like it in my career until recently.

[flagged]

Re: AI documentation you can talk to, for every repo

#72

Post by statusfailed »

andybak wrote: post #44
blopker wrote: post #16

I took a look at a project I maintain[0], and wow. It's so wrong in every section I saw. The generated diagrams make no sense. The text sections take implementation details that don't matter and present them to the user like they need to know them. It's also outdated. I hope actual users never see this. I dread thinking about having to go around to various LLM generated sites to correct documentation I never approved…

I just tried it on several of my repos and I was rather impressed. This is another one of those bizarre situations that keeps happening in AI coding related matters where people can look at the same thing and reach diametrically opposed conclusions. It's very peculiar and I've never experienced anything like it in my career until recently.

Which repos worked well? I've had the same experience as op- unhelpful diagrams and bad information hierarchy. But I'm curious to see examples of where it's produced good output!

Re: AI documentation you can talk to, for every repo

#73

Post by sceptic123 »

NewsaHackO wrote: post #28
blopker wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, it seems to be real excited about a VS Code extension that doesn't exist and isn't mentioned in the actual documentation. There's just too many factual errors to list.

>I dunno, it seems to be real excited about a VS Code extension that doesn't exist and isn't mentioned in the actual documentation. There's just too many factual errors to list. There is a folder for a VS Code extension here[0]. It seems to have a README with installation instructions. There is also an extension.ts file, which seems to me to be at least the initial prototype for the extension. Did you forget that you…

In that folder is CHANGELOG.md[0] that indicates that this is unreleased. I'd say that including installation instructions for an unreleased version of the extension is exactly the issue that is being flagged.

[0] https://github.com/blopker/codebook/blob/main/vscode-extensi...

Re: AI documentation you can talk to, for every repo

#74

Post by oblio »

andybak wrote: post #44
blopker wrote: post #16

I took a look at a project I maintain[0], and wow. It's so wrong in every section I saw. The generated diagrams make no sense. The text sections take implementation details that don't matter and present them to the user like they need to know them. It's also outdated. I hope actual users never see this. I dread thinking about having to go around to various LLM generated sites to correct documentation I never approved…

I just tried it on several of my repos and I was rather impressed. This is another one of those bizarre situations that keeps happening in AI coding related matters where people can look at the same thing and reach diametrically opposed conclusions. It's very peculiar and I've never experienced anything like it in my career until recently.

You could link your docs so we can compare them to OP's docs.

No need to guess.

Re: AI documentation you can talk to, for every repo

#75

Post by oblio »

curl-up wrote: post #53
NewsaHackO wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I dunno, it seems to be real excited about a VS Code extension that doesn't exist and isn't mentioned in the actual documentation. There's just too many factual errors to list. There is a folder for a VS Code extension here[0]. It seems to have a README with installation instructions. There is also an extension.ts file, which seems to me to be at least the initial prototype for the extension. Did you forget that you…

This thread should end up in the hall of fame, right next to the Dropbox one. From a fellow LLM-powered app builder, I wish you best of luck!

Plot twist, OP has a doc mentioning it as unreleased.

Re: AI documentation you can talk to, for every repo

#76

Post by oblio »

cuuupid wrote: post #7
jasonjmcghee wrote: post #3

This gets posted pretty frequently. 231 points | 77 days ago | 53 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45002092

YMMV, my experience with DeepWiki is that it’s decent but the DX of the documentation is horrible and the diagrams are often just incorrect. Worth mentioning this is a Cognition / Devin on-ramp and has been posted on HN a few times in just a couple months, feels a little sales-y to me.

These comments should be pushed to the top of the pile.

Re: AI documentation you can talk to, for every repo

#77

Post by sceptic123 »

shevy-java wrote: post #43

How many errors does that contain - anyone knows stats for that? I see "AI summaries" on github all the time. It's like a wall of text and seems to be designed to be super-verbose but without seemingly being very informative.

"If I had more time I would have written a shorter letter"

Re: AI documentation you can talk to, for every repo

#78

Post by twp »

deepwiki.com is untrustworthy AI slop. A true cancer.

deepwiki.com's generated page on my project contains several glaring errors. I hate to think of the extra support burden I will have to bear because of deepwiki.com publishing wrong information.

I asked the authors of the site (Andrew Gao) to remove their page on my project, but they ignored my request.

Re: AI documentation you can talk to, for every repo

#80

Post by billyp-rva »

onion2k wrote: post #52
blopker wrote: post #16

I took a look at a project I maintain[0], and wow. It's so wrong in every section I saw. The generated diagrams make no sense. The text sections take implementation details that don't matter and present them to the user like they need to know them. It's also outdated. I hope actual users never see this. I dread thinking about having to go around to various LLM generated sites to correct documentation I never approved…

I went to the lodash docs and asked about how I'd use the 'pipeline' operator (which doesn't exist) and it correctly pointed out that pipeline isn't a thing, and suggested chain() for normal code and flow() for lodash fp instead. That's pretty much spot on. If I was guessing I'd suggest that the base model has a lot more lodash code examples in the training data, which probably makes a big difference to the quality o…

The lack of a pipeline operator in JS (and JS libraries like lodash) has also been discussed online a lot.
Post reply on HN