81–90 of 329 posts
To all the AI apologists here I'd like to submit a simple scenario to you and hear your answer: you use AI to create a keynote speech on a topic you needed to use AI to write. At the end of your speech, people ask you questions about the contents of your speech. What do you say? This is the same.
"This seems to be largely a copy of the work done in OxCaml by @mshinwell and @spiessimon" "The webpage credits another author: Native binary debugging for OCaml (written by Claude!) @joelreymont, could you please explain where you obtained the code in this PR?" That pretty much sums up the experience of coding with LLMs. They are really damn awesome at regurgitating someone else's source code. And they have memorize…
> > Here's my question: why did the files that you submitted name Mark Shinwell as the author?
>Beats me. AI decided to do so and I didn't question it.
I'm howling
>>> Here's my question: why did the files that you submitted name Mark Shinwell as the author? >>> Beats me. AI decided to do so and I didn't question it. Really sums the whole thing up...
Did these Ocaml maintainers undergo some special course for dealing with difficult people? They show enormous amounts of maturity and patience. I'd just give the offender Torvalds' treatment and block them from the repo, case closed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty much. I guess it’s open source but it’s not in the spirit of open source contribution. Plus it puts the burden of reviewing the AI slop onto the project maintainers and the future maintenance is not the submitters problem. So you’ve generated lots of code using AI, nice work that’s faster for you but slower for everyone else around you.
Another consideration here that hits both sides at once is that the maintainers on the project are few. So while it could be a great burden pushing generated code on them for review, it also seems a great burden to get new features done in the first place. So it boils down to the choice of dealing with generated code for X feature, or not having X feature for a long time, if ever.
Given that the feature is already quite far into development (i.e. the implementation that the LLM copied), it doesn't seem like that is the case here
Did these Ocaml maintainers undergo some special course for dealing with difficult people? They show enormous amounts of maturity and patience. I'd just give the offender Torvalds' treatment and block them from the repo, case closed.
Maintainers and repo owners will get where they want to go the fastest by not referring to what/who "generated" code in a PR. Discussions about AI/LLM code being a problem solely because AI/LLM is not generally a productive conversation. Better is to critique the actual PR itself. For example, needs more tests, needs to be broken up, doesn't follow our protocols for merging/docs, etc. Additionally, if there isn't a c…
They did: the main point being made is "I'm not reading 13k LOCs when there's been no proposal and discussion that this is something we might want, and how we might want to have it implemented". Which is an absolutely fair point (there's no other possible answer really, unless you have days to waste) whether the code is AI-written or human-written.
Did these Ocaml maintainers undergo some special course for dealing with difficult people? They show enormous amounts of maturity and patience. I'd just give the offender Torvalds' treatment and block them from the repo, case closed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why have the OP in the loop at all if he’s just sending prompts to AI? Surely it’s a wonderful piece of performance art.
it reads like humiliation fetish material honestly. I'd delete my account but he just doubles down.
https://github.com/rerun-io/rerun/pull/11900#issuecomment-35...
https://github.com/ocaml/dune/issues/12731
https://github.com/tshort/StaticCompiler.jl/pull/180
Seems he's just on a rampage of "fixing" issues for trendy packages to get some attention.