4 ms·

[flagged]

jjmarr 1y ago
I didn't make a decision on the tradeoff, the LLVM community did. I also disclosed it in the PR. I also try to mitigate the code review burden by doing as much review as possible on my end & flagging what I don't understand. If your project has a policy against AI usage I won't submit AI-generated code because I respect your decision.
- h4ny 1y ago
  > I didn't make a decision on the tradeoff, the LLVM community did. I also disclosed it in the PR. That's not what the GP mean. Just because a community doesn't disallow something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. > I also try to mitigate the code review burden by doing as much review as possible on my end That's great but... > & flagging what I don't understand. It's absurd to me that people should commit code they don't understand. That is the problem. Just because you are allowed to commit AI-generated/assisted code does not mean that you should commit code that you don't understand. The overhead to others of committing code that you don't understand then ask someone to review is a lot higher than asking someone for directions first so you can understand the problem and code you write. > If your project has a policy against AI usage I won't submit AI-generated code because I respect your decision. That's just not the point.
  - huflungdung 1y ago
    [dead]
  - overfeed 1y ago
    > It's absurd to me that people should commit code they don't understand The industrywide tsunami of tech debt arising from AI detritus[1] will be interesting to watch. Tech leadership is currently drunk on improved productivity metrics (via lines of code or number of PRs), but I bet velocity will slow down, and products be more brittle due to extraneous AI-generated, with a lag, so it won't be immediately apparent. Only teams with rigorous reviews will fare well in the long term, but may be punished in the short term for "not being as productive" as others. 1. From personal observation: when I'm in a hurry, I accept code that does more than is necessary to meet the requirements, or is merely not succinct. Where as pre-AI, less code would be merged with a "TBD" tacked on
    - jjmarr 1y ago
      I agree with more review. The reason I wrote the PR is because AI keeps using `int` in my codebase when modern coding guidelines suggest `size_t`, `uint32_t`, or something else modern.
- Phelinofist 1y ago
  Where did you disclose it?
  - Sayrus 1y ago
    Only after getting reviews so it is hidden by default: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/146970#issuecomment-3043346015 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/146970#issuecommen...
    - optionalsquid 1y ago
      Disclosing that you used AI three days after making the PR, after 4 people had already commented on your code, doesn't sit right with me. That's the kind of thing that should be disclosed in the original PR message. Especially so if you are not confident in the generated code
      - anon22981 1y ago
        Sounds like a junior vibe coder with no understanding of software development trying to boost their CV. Or at least I hope that’s the case.
        jjmarr 1y ago
        I graduated literally 3 months ago so that's my skill level. I also have no idea what the social norms are for AI. I posted the comment after a friend on Discord said I should disclose my use of AI. The underlying purpose of the PR is ironically because Cline and Copilot keep trying to use `int` when modern C++ coding standards suggest `size_t` (or something similar).
noosphr 1y ago
That's no different to on boarding any new contributor. I cringe at the code I put out when I was 18. On top of all that every open source project has a gray hair problem. Telling people excited about a new tech to never contribute makes sure that all projects turn into templeOS when the lead maintainer moves on.
- totallymike 1y ago
  Onboarding a new contributor implies you’re investing time into someone you’re confident will pay off over the long run as an asset to the project. Reviewing LLM slop doesn’t grant any of that, you’re just plugging thumbs into cracks in the glass until the slop-generating contributor gets bored and moves on to another project or feels like they got what they wanted, and then moves on to another project. I accept that some projects allow this, and if they invite it, I guess I can’t say anything other than “good luck,” but to me it feels like long odds that any one contributor who starts out eager to make others wade through enough code to generate that many comments purely as a one-sided learning exercise will continue to remain invested in this project to the point where I feel glad to have invested in this particular pedagogy.
  - noosphr 1y ago
    >Onboarding a new contributor implies you’re investing time into someone you’re confident will pay off over the long run as an asset to the project. No you don't. And if you're that entitled to people's time you will simply get no new contributors.
    - totallymike 1y ago
      I’ll grant you that, but at least a new contributor who actually writes the code they contribute has offered some level of reciprocity with respect to the time it takes to review their contributions. Trying to understand a problem and taking some time to work out a solution proves that you’re actually trying to learn and be helpful, even if you’re green. Using a LLM to generate a nearly-thousand-line PR and yeeting it at the maintainers with a note that says “I don’t really know what this does” feels less hopeful. I feel like a better use of an LLM would be to use it for guidance on where to look when trying to see how pieces fit together, or maybe get some understanding of what something is doing, and then by one’s own efforts actually construct the solution. Then, even if one only has a partial implementation, it would feel much more reasonable to open a WIP PR and say “is this on the right track?”
0000000000100 1y ago
Go look at the PR man, it's pretty clear that he hasn't just dumped out LLM garbage and has put serious effort and understanding into the problem he's trying to solve. It seems a little mean to tell him to stop coding forever when his intentions and efforts seem pretty positive for the health of the project.
- thesz 1y ago
  One of resolved conversation contains a comment "you should warn about incorrect configuration in constructor, look how it is done in some-other-part-of-code." This means that he did not put serious effort into understanding what, when and why others do in a highly structured project like LLVM. He "wrote" the code and then dumped "written" code into community to catch mistakes.
  - onli 1y ago
    That is normal for a new contributor. You can't reasonably expect knowledge of all the conventions of the project. There has to be effort to produce something good and not overload the maintainers, I agree, but missing such a detail is not a sign that is not happening here.
    - anal_reactor 1y ago
      Every hobby at some point turns into an exclusive, invitation-only club in order to maintain the quality of each individual's contribution, but then old members start to literally die and they're left wondering why the hobby died too. I feel like most people don't understand that any organization that wants to grow needs to sacrifice quality in order to attract new members.
  - StopDisinfo910 1y ago
    Have you ever contributed to a very large project like LLVM? I would say clearly not from the comment. There are pitfalls everywhere. It’s not so small that you can get everything in your head with only a reading. You need to actually engage with the code via contributions to understand it. 100+ comments is not an exceptional amount for early contributions. Anyway, LLVM is so complex I doubt you can actually vibcode anything valuable so there are probably a lot of actual work in the contribution. There is a reason the community didn’t send them packing. Onboarding new comer is hard but it pays off.
fuoqi 1y ago
Well, some people just operate under the "some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I am willing to make" principle...
MangoToupe 1y ago
I think the project and reviewers are both perfectly capable of making their own decisions about the best use of their own time. No need to act like a dick to someone willing to own up to their own behavior.
sethammons 1y ago
Your final sentence moved me. Moved to flagging the post, that is.
tomhow 1y ago
You can't comment like this on Hacker News, no matter what you're replying to. You've been on HN a long time and we've never had to warn you before, but please take a moment to read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them, especially these ones: Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[flagged]

I didn't make a decision on the tradeoff, the LLVM community did. I also disclosed it in the PR. I also try to mitigate the code review burden by doing as much review as possible on my end & flagging what I don't understand. If your project has a policy against AI usage I won't submit AI-generated code because I respect your decision.

h4ny 1y ago
> I didn't make a decision on the tradeoff, the LLVM community did. I also disclosed it in the PR. That's not what the GP mean. Just because a community doesn't disallow something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. > I also try to mitigate the code review burden by doing as much review as possible on my end That's great but... > & flagging what I don't understand. It's absurd to me that people should commit code they don't understand. That is the problem. Just because you are allowed to commit AI-generated/assisted code does not mean that you should commit code that you don't understand. The overhead to others of committing code that you don't understand then ask someone to review is a lot higher than asking someone for directions first so you can understand the problem and code you write. > If your project has a policy against AI usage I won't submit AI-generated code because I respect your decision. That's just not the point.
- huflungdung 1y ago
  [dead]
- overfeed 1y ago
  > It's absurd to me that people should commit code they don't understand The industrywide tsunami of tech debt arising from AI detritus[1] will be interesting to watch. Tech leadership is currently drunk on improved productivity metrics (via lines of code or number of PRs), but I bet velocity will slow down, and products be more brittle due to extraneous AI-generated, with a lag, so it won't be immediately apparent. Only teams with rigorous reviews will fare well in the long term, but may be punished in the short term for "not being as productive" as others. 1. From personal observation: when I'm in a hurry, I accept code that does more than is necessary to meet the requirements, or is merely not succinct. Where as pre-AI, less code would be merged with a "TBD" tacked on
  - jjmarr 1y ago
    I agree with more review. The reason I wrote the PR is because AI keeps using `int` in my codebase when modern coding guidelines suggest `size_t`, `uint32_t`, or something else modern.
Phelinofist 1y ago
Where did you disclose it?
- Sayrus 1y ago
  Only after getting reviews so it is hidden by default: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/146970#issuecomment-3043346015 https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/146970#issuecommen...
  - optionalsquid 1y ago
    Disclosing that you used AI three days after making the PR, after 4 people had already commented on your code, doesn't sit right with me. That's the kind of thing that should be disclosed in the original PR message. Especially so if you are not confident in the generated code
    - anon22981 1y ago
      Sounds like a junior vibe coder with no understanding of software development trying to boost their CV. Or at least I hope that’s the case.
      - jjmarr 1y ago
        I graduated literally 3 months ago so that's my skill level. I also have no idea what the social norms are for AI. I posted the comment after a friend on Discord said I should disclose my use of AI. The underlying purpose of the PR is ironically because Cline and Copilot keep trying to use `int` when modern C++ coding standards suggest `size_t` (or something similar).

noosphr 1y ago

That's no different to on boarding any new contributor. I cringe at the code I put out when I was 18. On top of all that every open source project has a gray hair problem. Telling people excited about a new tech to never contribute makes sure that all projects turn into templeOS when the lead maintainer moves on.

totallymike 1y ago
Onboarding a new contributor implies you’re investing time into someone you’re confident will pay off over the long run as an asset to the project. Reviewing LLM slop doesn’t grant any of that, you’re just plugging thumbs into cracks in the glass until the slop-generating contributor gets bored and moves on to another project or feels like they got what they wanted, and then moves on to another project. I accept that some projects allow this, and if they invite it, I guess I can’t say anything other than “good luck,” but to me it feels like long odds that any one contributor who starts out eager to make others wade through enough code to generate that many comments purely as a one-sided learning exercise will continue to remain invested in this project to the point where I feel glad to have invested in this particular pedagogy.
- noosphr 1y ago
  >Onboarding a new contributor implies you’re investing time into someone you’re confident will pay off over the long run as an asset to the project. No you don't. And if you're that entitled to people's time you will simply get no new contributors.
  - totallymike 1y ago
    I’ll grant you that, but at least a new contributor who actually writes the code they contribute has offered some level of reciprocity with respect to the time it takes to review their contributions. Trying to understand a problem and taking some time to work out a solution proves that you’re actually trying to learn and be helpful, even if you’re green. Using a LLM to generate a nearly-thousand-line PR and yeeting it at the maintainers with a note that says “I don’t really know what this does” feels less hopeful. I feel like a better use of an LLM would be to use it for guidance on where to look when trying to see how pieces fit together, or maybe get some understanding of what something is doing, and then by one’s own efforts actually construct the solution. Then, even if one only has a partial implementation, it would feel much more reasonable to open a WIP PR and say “is this on the right track?”

0000000000100 1y ago

Go look at the PR man, it's pretty clear that he hasn't just dumped out LLM garbage and has put serious effort and understanding into the problem he's trying to solve. It seems a little mean to tell him to stop coding forever when his intentions and efforts seem pretty positive for the health of the project.

thesz 1y ago
One of resolved conversation contains a comment "you should warn about incorrect configuration in constructor, look how it is done in some-other-part-of-code." This means that he did not put serious effort into understanding what, when and why others do in a highly structured project like LLVM. He "wrote" the code and then dumped "written" code into community to catch mistakes.
- onli 1y ago
  That is normal for a new contributor. You can't reasonably expect knowledge of all the conventions of the project. There has to be effort to produce something good and not overload the maintainers, I agree, but missing such a detail is not a sign that is not happening here.
  - anal_reactor 1y ago
    Every hobby at some point turns into an exclusive, invitation-only club in order to maintain the quality of each individual's contribution, but then old members start to literally die and they're left wondering why the hobby died too. I feel like most people don't understand that any organization that wants to grow needs to sacrifice quality in order to attract new members.
- StopDisinfo910 1y ago
  Have you ever contributed to a very large project like LLVM? I would say clearly not from the comment. There are pitfalls everywhere. It’s not so small that you can get everything in your head with only a reading. You need to actually engage with the code via contributions to understand it. 100+ comments is not an exceptional amount for early contributions. Anyway, LLVM is so complex I doubt you can actually vibcode anything valuable so there are probably a lot of actual work in the contribution. There is a reason the community didn’t send them packing. Onboarding new comer is hard but it pays off.

fuoqi 1y ago

Well, some people just operate under the "some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I am willing to make" principle...

MangoToupe 1y ago

I think the project and reviewers are both perfectly capable of making their own decisions about the best use of their own time. No need to act like a dick to someone willing to own up to their own behavior.

sethammons 1y ago

Your final sentence moved me. Moved to flagging the post, that is.

tomhow 1y ago

You can't comment like this on Hacker News, no matter what you're replying to. You've been on HN a long time and we've never had to warn you before, but please take a moment to read the guidelines and make an effort to observe them, especially these ones: Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html