No LLM Code in Dependencies • Hacker News Board

Re: No LLM Code in Dependencies

#71

Post by bigstrat2003 » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 9:02 PM UTC

hypfer wrote: post #50

What confuses me about this stance is that LLMs are basically indistinguishable from any mid-to-low-tier dev. And those we've let into our codebases with no concerns. Hell, some even threw parties inviting in more of them. At least LLMs don't call HR on you when you rightfully tell them that they're full of shit. Though.. well. Claude probably might.

LLMs are worse at programming than any dev I've ever worked with. Yes, even $latest_model. They have no understanding or ability to reason, and they make mistakes no human would make. They are, in short, bad at programming.

Re: No LLM Code in Dependencies

#72

Post by tumetab1 » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 9:03 PM UTC

bitbasher wrote: post #47

I agree we need to address the elephant in the room, but our community is about as polarized as politics in America.

Which elephant?

Re: No LLM Code in Dependencies

#73

Post by gspr » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 9:05 PM UTC

simonw wrote: post #70

gspr wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't fix them without LLMs, then you can't fix them. You probably shouldn't be trusted with maintaining the codebase in the first place.

How about if you don't have time to fix them without LLMs?

Then you don't have time to maintain the codebase. Sad, but sometimes true.

Re: No LLM Code in Dependencies

#74

Post by simonw » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 9:05 PM UTC

gspr wrote: post #73

simonw wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about if you don't have time to fix them without LLMs?

Then you don't have time to maintain the codebase. Sad, but sometimes true.

Welcome to volunteer-driven open source.

(Update: you're a Debian developer so you're even more familiar with how that world works than I am.)

Re: No LLM Code in Dependencies

#75

Post by hypfer » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 9:06 PM UTC

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #71

hypfer wrote: post #50

What confuses me about this stance is that LLMs are basically indistinguishable from any mid-to-low-tier dev. And those we've let into our codebases with no concerns. Hell, some even threw parties inviting in more of them. At least LLMs don't call HR on you when you rightfully tell them that they're full of shit. Though.. well. Claude probably might.

LLMs are worse at programming than any dev I've ever worked with. Yes, even $latest_model. They have no understanding or ability to reason, and they make mistakes no human would make. They are, in short, bad at programming.

I know what you mean regarding the class of mistakes, but strong disagree on the "worse" part.

Or rather I envy you for your experience with humans so far.

Re: No LLM Code in Dependencies

#76

Post by bigstrat2003 » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 9:07 PM UTC

kstenerud wrote: post #12

[flagged]

If all the people who actually know how to program and care about quality get pushed out by the AI bros, software will collapse. I'll certainly miss them when that happens.

Re: No LLM Code in Dependencies

#77

Post by kzrdude » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 9:08 PM UTC

tumetab1 wrote: post #72

bitbasher wrote: post #47

I agree we need to address the elephant in the room, but our community is about as polarized as politics in America.

Which elephant?

I think the copyright and license question is one of the elephants in the room that hasn't had a satisfying conclusion. It's very important to have a clear idea of this for the open source movement.

Re: No LLM Code in Dependencies

#78

Post by sscaryterry » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 9:09 PM UTC

gspr wrote: post #63

sscaryterry wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. So many assumptions. If you disclose you used an LLM, it is immediately assumed all of it is done by an LLM. If there is a bug, its because you are a lazy piece of shit, not because humans make mistakes, and you missed it. It is branded slop. We're living in interesting times, socially, OSS will die because of this. Contributors are dwindling, and will continue to do so. If you want to play in your sandbox, ple…

I think you're wrong. And I think that FOSS is our last best hope to keep software under the control of the individual. The sloppers are diving head-first into a world where not knowing how a basic idea translates to code is embraced. This is not true of every slopper, but it is true of enough that sloppers are a threat.

I hear you, but again there are a lot of assumptions in this statement: "sloppers are diving head-first into a world where not knowing".

The problem is you've redefined LLM-coding as slopping. "This is not true of every slopper".

Re: No LLM Code in Dependencies

#79

Post by hombre_fatal » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 9:09 PM UTC

bitbasher wrote: post #40

gravatron wrote: post #39

funny enough if you spent just a few minutes with a LLM working on the design of your website it wouldn't look like complete shit.

function > form

If you had to pick one, sure. But it's trivial to have both which is the point of those cringey websites like http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com

Re: No LLM Code in Dependencies

#80

Post by sscaryterry » Thu, Jul 02, 2026, 9:11 PM UTC

gspr wrote: post #73

simonw wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about if you don't have time to fix them without LLMs?

Then you don't have time to maintain the codebase. Sad, but sometimes true.

When given the choice between putting food on the table, and being a purist, I'd take some bread. It is hard out there.