Git annex is a remarkable piece of software and I've been inspired by lead developer joeyh's approach to both FOSS and life. For example: https://joeyh.name/offgrid/
I am unreasonably irritated by their use of kw instead of kW
No LLM Code in Dependencies
81–90 of 120 posts
Re: No LLM Code in Dependencies
#82What 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.
You've not worked with average developers then, or this is a purely reactionary/emotional statement.
Re: No LLM Code in Dependencies
#83Re: No LLM Code in Dependencies
#84[flagged]
Re: No LLM Code in Dependencies
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
In ten years we'll look at human written code like the unreliable garbage it is, and never rely on anything that wasn't at least seriously looked over by an LLM. It won't be even close.
Yes, the same way 10 years from now-10years, we'd all be looking back at how insane it was for people to drive cars. Man do I enjoy my totally real full self driving.
You're being sarcastic, but I do enjoy it. I just took a Waymo recently and it was thrilling, it felt great to feel the wind and the sun, listen to music, and get where I was going without having to drive there. I still like driving, obviously, but being able to decide one or the other is wonderful.
Re: No LLM Code in Dependencies
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems like an unfounded assumption. Why should one assume that Git Annex has hundreds or thousands of critical, exploitable security vulnerabilities?
This isn't a problem that is isolated to Git Annex. There are many maintainers out there taking anti-LLM stances, and you don't have to look very far to find OSS projects drowning from the wave of bugs. https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2026/05/26/the-pressure/
Wave of bug reports which is quite a different thing.
If you aren’t happy with their stance towards LLMs you can fork and fix yourself if you feel it’s necessary.
Re: No LLM Code in Dependencies
#87What 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.
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…
> OSS will die because of this
OSS will not die.
Re: No LLM Code in Dependencies
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
In ten years we'll look at human written code like the unreliable garbage it is, and never rely on anything that wasn't at least seriously looked over by an LLM. It won't be even close.
> never rely on anything that wasn't at least seriously looked over by an LLM I can imagine LLMs becoming a mainstay, but what you are describing isn't wholly different from sufficiently advanced static code analysis - where you'd want more determinism than most LLMs normally provide. The problem is that such a thing might take a decade and billions of dollars of investments to create per-language (e.g. actually usef…
I remember back in the pre-2023 days where SonarQube was a big deal for Java static analysis, and I let it rip across an entire 120k line project at one point upon which it found something like seven issues, out of which only one or two were actual bugs. It was almost entirely useless. I think even Qwen would've done leagues better today.
Most bugs are far too nuanced to be caught by static analysis imo, you do need to actually understand what's going on in the program, the intent, the environment, etc. instead of blindly verifying if everything technically checks out, compilers already do a perfect job at that.
Re: No LLM Code in Dependencies
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Beats copy pasting from stackoverflow and calling it yours.
Does it? Seems roughly equivalent. At least with SO there is a clear problem and solution being solved.
Well one is silent and the other has a big "Co-authored by Claude" label on it, so it's at least more visible.
With SO there's an unclear problem and a closed as duplicate being served if we're being real.
Re: No LLM Code in Dependencies
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
In ten years we'll look at human written code like the unreliable garbage it is, and never rely on anything that wasn't at least seriously looked over by an LLM. It won't be even close.
Yes, the same way 10 years from now-10years, we'd all be looking back at how insane it was for people to drive cars. Man do I enjoy my totally real full self driving.
I find this attitude really weird. I just checked and I have 8,793 miles driven on my car and of that I'd say ~8750 of them were done by fsd (self driving). These days most of my interventions are to pick a different parking spot, and I can't remember the last time I had a serious disengagement, it's always just me wanting to drive a different route, park in a different location, or sometimes to handle things like car washes and the like.
For me, for all intents and purposes, self driving is here today.