3 ms·

This reminds me of auto-generated got commit messages. I can't fathom that someone would go to the effort of authoring a PR,and then not bothering to describe w

This reminds me of auto-generated got commit messages. I can't fathom that someone would go to the effort of authoring a PR,and then not bothering to describe what they did. Unless of course they didn't actually go through the effort of authoring the PR, and may not even be fully aware of what's in there. I've stopped giving thorough code reviews to coworkers who can't use code generation responsibility, and often times they haven't reviewed the code themselves. Heck, I've been giving my PRs self-reviews since long before AI.

danielbln 1y ago
I don't get this take. If I work through a feature with an LLM and then task it with creating conventional atomic commits to persist the work then that's no different to generating any other documentation. Same for the PR description. Now, you want to make sure it's not slop, purple prose or has any emojis, but other than that commits and PR descriptions are an entirely valid automation target.
- alganet 1y ago
  I will look down on your auto-generated commits though, and be more critical of your PR if you use them by choice. Just like I would be naturally more inquisitve about the writing origin for a book that has an auto-generated image in the cover. Choose your analogy, the idea stays the same. There are two ways of seeing it, and it requires further investigation. Maybe, as I just suggested, read each book or review the entire PR. It is definitely a reason to consider slowing down the usage of automation, or at least scrutinizing it more.
alganet 1y ago
As I mentioned, there are two ways of seeing it. Maybe there was some kind of pressure for LLM usage in the Abstract section. In certain points of my career, I have been pressure before to generate commits with specific rigid requirements. Perhaps we should look into the kinds of pressures that would force or push someone to LLM usage. What do you think?

danielbln 1y ago

I don't get this take. If I work through a feature with an LLM and then task it with creating conventional atomic commits to persist the work then that's no different to generating any other documentation. Same for the PR description. Now, you want to make sure it's not slop, purple prose or has any emojis, but other than that commits and PR descriptions are an entirely valid automation target.

alganet 1y ago
I will look down on your auto-generated commits though, and be more critical of your PR if you use them by choice. Just like I would be naturally more inquisitve about the writing origin for a book that has an auto-generated image in the cover. Choose your analogy, the idea stays the same. There are two ways of seeing it, and it requires further investigation. Maybe, as I just suggested, read each book or review the entire PR. It is definitely a reason to consider slowing down the usage of automation, or at least scrutinizing it more.

alganet 1y ago

As I mentioned, there are two ways of seeing it. Maybe there was some kind of pressure for LLM usage in the Abstract section. In certain points of my career, I have been pressure before to generate commits with specific rigid requirements. Perhaps we should look into the kinds of pressures that would force or push someone to LLM usage. What do you think?