Live data from Hacker News

We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

samsaffron.com

81–90 of 161 posts

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#81

> “I am closing this but this is interesting, head over to our forum/issues to discuss” I really like the way Discourse uses "levels" to slowly open up features as new people interact with the community, and I wonder if GitHub could build in a way of allowing people to only be able to open PRs after a certain amount of interaction, too (for example, you can only raise a large PR if you have spent enough time raising…

Mailing lists are used as a filter to raise the barrier to entry to prevent people from contributing code that they have no intention of maintaining and leaving that to the project owners. Github for better or worse has made the barrier to entry much much lower and significantly easier for people to propose changes and then disappear.

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um, yes? They can focus on other things that are more impactful in the business rather than just slinging code all day, they can actually look at design and the product! Maximum headcount for engineers is around 7, no more than that now. I used to have 20, but with AI we don't need that many for our size.

> Maximum headcount for engineers is around 7, no more than that now. I used to have 20, If I survived having 65% of my colleagues laid off you'd better believe I wouldn't complain in public.

BigTTYGothGF is right

I'd also be looking for a new job that values the skills I've spent a decade building.

I wonder if the remaining engineers' salary increased by the salary of the laid off coworkers'

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s nothing wrong with judgment. Judging someone’s character based on whether they use generative “AI” is a valid practice. You may not like being judged, but that’s another matter entirely.

Yep, if you churn out a bad change - AI or not - I'm going to be more careful with reviewing what you put out*. This is judgement, and it is a good thing - it helps us prioritise what is worth doing, and how much time should be spent on it. If your attitude is consistently "idk the AI made it" and you refuse to review it yourself. For 1, I am insulted that you think I should pick up your slack, and 2, I'm going to ju…

This is not judgment as much as it is programming a community and is perpetuating the opposite of correct judgment since it's inserting an emotion and opinion into a collective mind and discourse (the headline alone which might be all a lot of people scan and a tone-setter). It's going to cause reactions like the one you just had at many points in time used against people that decide to use modern tools. If Discurse wanted to start a discussion that might solve a problem they could have used a better headline.

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#84

I guess the main question I'm left with after reading this is "what good is a prototype, then?" In a few of the companies I've worked at there was a quarterly or biannual ritual called "hack week" or "innovation week" or "hackathon" where engineers form small teams and try to bang out a pet project super fast. Sometimes these projects get management's attention, and get "promoted" to a product or feature. Having work…

Completely agree, I hate the “hackathon” for so many reasons, guess I’ll vent here too. All of this from the perspective of one frustrated software engineer in web tech.

First of all, if you want innovation, why are you forcing it into a single week? You very likely have smart people with very good ideas, but they’re held back by your number-driven bullshit. These orgs actively kill innovation by reducing talent to quantifiable rows of data.

A product hobbled together from shit prototype code very obviously stands out. It has various pages that don’t quite look/work the same, Cross-functional things that “work everywhere else” don’t in some parts.

It rewards only the people who make good presentations, or pick the “current hype thing” to work on. Occasionally something good that addresses real problems is at least mentioned but the hype thing will always win (if judged by your SLT)

Shame on you if the slop prototype is handed off to some other team than the hackathon presenters. Presenters take all the promotion points, then implementers have to sort out a bunch of bullshit code, very likely being told to just ship the prototype “it works you idiots, I saw it in the demo, just ship it.” Which is so incredibly short sighted.

I think the depressing truth is your executives know it’s all hobbled together bullshit, but that it will sell anyway, so why invest time making it actually good? They all have their golden parachutes, what do they care about the suckers stuck on-call for the house-of-cards they were forced to build, despite possessing the talent to make it stable? All this stupidity happens over and over again, not because it is wise, or even the best way to do this, the truth is just a flaccid “eh, it’ll work though, fuck it, let’s get paid.”

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um, yes? They can focus on other things that are more impactful in the business rather than just slinging code all day, they can actually look at design and the product! Maximum headcount for engineers is around 7, no more than that now. I used to have 20, but with AI we don't need that many for our size.

Yeah I'm sure they aren't complaining because you'll just lay them off like the others. I don't see how you could think 7 engineers would love the workload of 20 engineers, extra tooling or not. Have fun with the tech debt in a few years.

thats the trouble I see with AI and management.

Management may see a churn of a few years as acceptable. If management makes 1$M in that time.. they wont care. "Once I get mine, I don't care"

Like my old CEO who moved out of state to avoid a massive tax bill, got his payout, became hands off, and let the company slide to be almost worthless.

Or at my current company there is no care for quality since we're just going to launch a new generation of product in 3 years. We're doing things here that will CAUSE a ground up rewrite. We're writing code to rely on undocumented features of the mcu that the vendor have said 'we cannot guarantee it will always behave this way' But our management cycles out every 3-4 years. Just enough time to kill the old, champion the new, get their bonus, and move on. Bonuses are handed out every January. Like clockwork there's between 3-7 directors and above who either get promoted or leave in February.

I don't see how any business person would see any value in engineering that extends past their tenure. They see value in launching/delivering/selling, and are rolling the dice that we're JUST able to not cause a nation wide outage or brick every device.

So AI is great... as long as I've 'gotten mine' before it explodes

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#86

Essay is way more interesting than the title, which doesn't actually capture it.

The title seems perfectly engineered to get upvotes from people who don't read the article, which puts the article in front of more people who would actually read it (which is good because the article is, as you say, very interesting and worth sharing). I don't like it but I can hardly blame them.

Agreed. Sometimes such rage/engagement-bait titles get changed on HN, but it's risky to do as a submitter cause it's unclear when you are "allowed" to change the title. And I suppose if you want upvotes, why would you change the ragebait title?

Usually engagement-bait titles are cover for uninteresting articles, but yeah in this case it's way more interesting than the title to me anyway.

i guess it makes it even more obvious when people are discussing the title instead of the actual piece, which is routine on HN but not always obvious! Although to be fair, the title describes one part of the piece, sure. the part with the least original insight.

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#88

2 months ago, after I started using Claude Code on my side project, within the space of days, I went from not allowing a single line of AI code into my codebase to almost 100% AI-written code. It basically codes in my exact style and I know ahead of time what code I expect to see so reviewing is really easy. I cannot justify to myself writing code by hand when there is literally no difference in the output from how I…

I dont mean to question you personally, after all this is the internet, but comments like yours do make the reader think, if he has 5x'ed his coding, was he any good to begin with? I guess what I'm saying is, without knowing your baseline skill level, I dont know whether to be impressed by your story. Have you become a super-programmer, or is it just cleaning up stupid stuff that you shouldn't have been doing in the first place? If someone is already a clear-headed, efficient, experienced programmer, would that person be seeing anywhere near the benefits you have? Again, this isn't a slight on you personally, it's just, a reader doesnt really know how to place your experience into context.

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#89
post #29

>That said, there is a trend among many developers of banning AI. Some go so far as to say “AI not welcome here” find another project. >This feels extremely counterproductive and fundamentally unenforceable to me. Much of the code AI generates is indistinguishable from human code anyway. You can usually tell a prototype that is pretending to be a human PR, but a real PR a human makes with AI assistance can be indisti…

Personally, I would not contribute to a project that forced me to lie. And from the point of view of the maintainers, it seems a terrible idea to set up rules with the expectation that they will be broken.

...YYyyeah, that says a lot about you, and nothing about the project in question.

"Forced you to lie"?? Are you serious?

If the project says "no AI", and you insist on using AI, that's not "forcing you to lie"; that's you not respecting their rules and choosing to lie, rather than just go contribute to something else.

Re: We need a clearer framework for AI-assisted contributions to open source

#90
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maximum headcount for engineers is around 7, no more than that now. I used to have 20, If I survived having 65% of my colleagues laid off you'd better believe I wouldn't complain in public.

BigTTYGothGF is right I'd also be looking for a new job that values the skills I've spent a decade building. I wonder if the remaining engineers' salary increased by the salary of the laid off coworkers'

Yeah or start my own company since they're basically doing everything now it sounds like.

Someone barking orders at you to generate code because they are too stupid to be able to read it is not very fun.

These people hire developers because their own brains are inferior, and now they think they can replace them because they don't want to share the wages with them.

Post reply on HN