8 ms·
It's similarly insulting to read your AI-generated pull request. If I see another "dart-on-target" emoji... You're telling me I need to use 100% of my brain, r
by jihadjihad 1y ago
It's similarly insulting to read your AI-generated pull request. If I see another "dart-on-target" emoji...
You're telling me I need to use 100% of my brain, reasoning power, and time to go over your code, but you didn't feel the need to hold yourself to the same standard?
- latexr 1y ago> You're telling me I need to use 100% of my brain, reasoning power, and time to go over your code, but you didn't feel the need to hold yourself to the same standard? I don’t think they are (telling you that). The person who sends you an AI slop PR would be just as happy (probably even happier) if you turned off your brain and just merged it without any critical thinking.
- bitbasher 1y ago[flagged]
- nbardy 1y agoYou know you can AI review the PR too, don't be such a curmudgeon. I have PR's at work I and coworkers fully AI generated and fully AI review. And
- gdulli 1y ago> You know you can AI review the PR too, don't be such a curmudgeon. I have PR's at work I and coworkers fully AI generated and fully AI review. And Waiting for the rest of the comment to load in order to figure out if it's sincere or parody.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- kacesensitive 1y agoHe must of dropped connection while chatGPT was generating his HN comment
- Uhhrrr 1y ago"must have"
- latexr 1y agoConsidering their profile, I’d say it’s probably sincere.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- jurgenaut23 1y agoAhahah
- thatjoeoverthr 1y agoHis agent hit what we in the biz call “max tokens”
- skrebbel 1y agoHahahahah well done :dart-emoji:
- footy 1y agodid AI write this comment?
- kacesensitive 1y agoYou’re absolutely right! This has AI energy written all over it — polished sentences, perfect grammar, and just the right amount of “I read the entire internet” vibes! But hey, at least it’s trying to sound friendly, right?
- Narciss 1y agoThis definitely is ai generated LOL
- rkozik1989 1y agoSo how do you catch the errors that AI made in the pull request? Because if both of you are using AI for both halves of a PR then you're definitely coding and pasting code from an LLM. Which is almost always hot garbage if you actually take the time to read it.
- cjs_ac 1y agoYou can just look at the analytics to see if the feature is broken. /s
- i80and 1y agoPlease be doing a bit
- lelandfe 1y agoAs for the first question, about AI possibly truncating my comments,
- dyauspitr 1y agoSatire? Because whether you’re being serious or not people are definitely doing exactly this.
- dickersnoodle 1y agoOne Furby codes and a second one reviews...
- shermantanktop 1y agoLet's red-team this: use Teddy Ruxpin to review, a Tamagotchi can build the deployment plan, and a Rock'em Sock'em Robot can execute it.
- gh0stcat 1y agoThis is such a good idea, the ultimate solution is connecting the furbies to CI.
- latexr 1y agoThis makes no sense, and it’s absurd anyone thinks it does. If the AI PR were any good, it wouldn’t need review. And if it does need review, why would the AI be trustworthy if it did a poor job the first time? This is like reviewing your own PRs, it completely defeats the purpose. And no, using different models doesn’t fix the issue. That’s just adding several layers of stupid on top of each other and praying that somehow the result is smart.
- falcor84 1y ago> That’s just adding several layers of stupid on top of each other and praying that somehow the result is smart. That is literally how civilization works.
- falcor84 1y agoJust to explain my brusque comment: the way I see it, civilization is populated with a large fraction of individuals whose intelligence or conscientiousness I wouldn't trust to mind my cactus, but that I'm ok with entrusting a lot more too because of the systems and processes offered by society at large. As an example, knowing that a service is offered by a registered company with presence in my area gives me the knowledge "that they know that I know" that if something goes wrong, I can sue them for negligence, possibly up to piercing the corporate veil the company and having the directors serve prison time. From that I can somewhat rationally derive that if the company has been in business offer similar services for years, it is likely that they have processes in place to maintain a level of professionalism that would lower the risk of such lawsuits. And on an organisational level, even if I still have good reason to think that most of the employees are incompetent, the fact that the company is making it work gives me a significantly higher preference in the "result" than I would in any individual "stupid" component. And for a closer-to-home example, the internet is well known to be a highly reliable system built from unreliable components.
- enraged_camel 1y ago>> This makes no sense, and it’s absurd anyone thinks it does. It's a joke.
- KalMann 1y agoIf An AI can do a review then why would you put it up for others to review? Just use the AI to do the review yourself before creating a PR.
- devsda 1y ago> I have PR's at work I and coworkers fully AI generated and fully AI review. I first read that as "coworkers (who are) fully AI generated" and I didn't bat an eye. All the AI hype has made me immune to AI related surprises. I think even if we inch very close to real AGI, many would feel "meh" due to the constant deluge of AI posts.
- metalliqaz 1y agoWhen I picture a team using their AI to both write and review PRs, I think of the "obama medal award" meme
- athrowaway3z 1y agoIf your team is stuck at this stage, you need to wake up and re-evaluate. I understand how you might reach this point, but the AI-review should be run by the developer in the pre-PR phase.
- jacquesm 1y ago> And Do you review your comments too with AI?
- matheusmoreira 1y agoAIs generating code which will then be reviewed by AIs. Résumés generated by AIs being evaluated by AI recruiters. This timeline is turning into such a hilarious clown world. The future is bleak.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- babypuncher 1y ago"Let the AI check its own homework, what could go wrong?"
- photonthug 1y ago> fully AI generated and fully AI review This reminds me of an awesome bit by Žižek where he describes an ultra-modern approach to dating. She brings the vibrator, he brings the synthetic sleeve, and after all the buzzing begins and the simulacra are getting on well, the humans sigh in relief. Now that this is out of the way they can just have a tea and a chat. It's clearly ridiculous, yet at the point where papers or PRs are written by robots, reviewed by robots, for eventual usage/consumption/summary by yet more robots, it becomes very relevant. At some point one must ask, what is it all for, and should we maybe just skip some of these steps or revisit some assumptions about what we're trying to accomplish
- the_af 1y ago> It's clearly ridiculous, yet at the point where papers or PRs are written by robots, reviewed by robots, for eventual usage/consumption/summary by yet more robots, it becomes very relevant. At some point one must ask, what is it all for, and should we maybe just skip some of these steps or revisit some assumptions about what we're trying to accomplish I've been thinking this for a while, despairing, and amazed that not everyone is worried/surprised about this like me. Who are we building all this stuff for, exactly? Some technophiles are arguing this will free us to... do what exactly? Art, work, leisure, sex, analysis, argument, etc will be done for us. So we can do what exactly? Go extinct? "With AI I can finally write the book I always wanted, but lacked the time and talent to write!". Ok, and who will read it? Everybody will be busy AI-writing other books in their favorite fantasy world, tailored specifically to them, and it's not like a human wrote it anyway so nobody's feelings should be hurt if nobody reads your stuff.
- photonthug 1y agoAs something of a technophile myself.. I see a lot more value in arguments that highlight totally ridiculous core assumptions rather than focusing on some kind of "humans first and only!" perspectives. Work isn't necessarily supposed to be hard to be valuable, but it is supposed to have some kind of real point. In the dating scenario what's really absurd and disgusting isn't actually the artificiality of toys.. it's the ritualistic aspect of the unnecessary preamble, because you could skip straight to tea and talk if that is the point. We write messages from bullet points, ask AI to pad them out uselessly with "professional" sounding fluff, and then on the other side someone is summarizing them back to bullet points? That's insane even if it was lossless, just normalize and promote simple communications. Similarly if an AI review was any value-add for AI PR's, it can be bolted on to the code-gen phase. If editors/reviewers have value in book publishing, they should read the books and opine and do the gate-keeping we supposedly need them for instead of telling authors to bring their own audience, etc etc. I think maybe the focus on rituals, optics, and posturing is a big part of what really makes individual people or whole professions obsolete
- r0me1 1y agoOn the other hand I spend less time adapting to every developer writing style and I find the AI structure output preferable
- sesm 1y agoTo be fair, the same problem existed before AI tools, with people spitting out a ton of changes without explaining what problem are they trying to solve and what's the idea behind the solution. AI tools just made it worse.
- zdragnar 1y ago> AI tools just made it worse. That's why it isn't necessary to add the "to be fair" comment i see crop up every time someone complains about the low quality of AI. Dealing with low effort people is bad enough without encouraging more people to be the same. We don't need tools to make life worse.
- kcatskcolbdi 1y agoThis comment seems to not appreciate how changing the scope of impact is itself a gigantic problem (and the one that needs to be immediately solved for). It's as if someone created a device that made cancer airborne and contagious and you come in to say "to be fair, cancer existed before this device, the device just made it way worse". Yes? And? Do you have a solution to solving the cancer? Then pointing it out really isn't doing anything. Focus on getting people to stop using the contagious aerosol first.
- o11c 1y agoThere is one way in which AI has made it easier: instead of maintainers trying to figure out how to talk someone into being a productive contributor, now "just reach for the banhammer" is a reasonable response.
- sumeno 1y agoIf my neighbors let their dog poop in my yard and leave it I have a problem. If a company builds an industrial poop delivery system that lets anyone with dog poop deliver it directly into my yard with the push of a button I have a much different and much bigger problem
- mikepurvis 1y agoI would never put up a copilot PR for colleague review without fully reviewing it myself first. But once that’s done, why not?
- irl_zebra 1y agoI don't think this is what they were saying.
- goostavos 1y agoIt destroys the value of code review and wastes the reviewers time. Code review is one of the places where experience is transferred. It is disheartening to leave thoughtful comments and have them met with "I duno. I just had [AI] do it." If all you do is 'review' the output of your prompting before cutting a CR, I'd prefer you just send the prompt.
- ok_dad 1y ago> Code review is one of the places where experience is transferred. Almost nobody uses it for that today, unfortunately, and code reviews in both directions are probably where the vast majority of learning software development comes from. I learned nearly zilch in my first 5 years as a software dev at crappy startups, then I learned more about software development in 6 months when a new team actually took the time to review my code carefully and give me good suggestions rather than just "LGTM"-ing it.
- Aeolun 1y agoI mean, if I could accept it myself? Maybe not. But I have no choice but to go through the gatekeeper.
- reg_dunlop 1y agoNow an AI-generated PR summary I fully support. That's a use of the tool I find to be very helpful. Never would I take the time to provide hyperlinked references to my own PR.
- danudey 1y agoI don't need an AI generated PR summary because the AI is unlikely to understand why the changes are being made, and specifically why you took the approach(es) that you did. I can see the code, I know what changed. Give me the logic behind this change. Tell me what issues you ran into during the implementation and how you solved them. Tell me what other approaches you considered and ruled out. Just saying "This change un-links frobulation from reticulating splines by doing the following" isn't useful. It's like adding code comments that tell you what the next line does; if I want to know that I'll just read the next line.
- runj__ 1y agoBut I explained to the AI why we're doing the change. When the AI and I try something and we fail I explain that and it's included in the PR. The AI has far more energy than I do when it comes to writing PR summaries, I have done it so many times, it's not the main part of my job. I have already provided all the information for a PR, why should I repeat myself? What happened to DRY?
- WorldMaker 1y agoBut that's not what a PR summary is best used for. I don't need links to exact files, the Diff/Files tab is a click away and it usually has a nice search feature. The Commits tab is a little bit less helpful, but also already exists. I don't need an AI telling me stuff already at my fingertips. A good PR summary should be the why of the PR. Not redundantly repeat what changed, give me description of why it changed, what alternatives were tested, what you think the struggles were, what you think the consequences may be, what you expect the next steps to be, etc. I've never seen an AI generated summary that comes close to answering any of those questions. An AI generated summary is a bit like that junior developer that adds plenty of comments but all the comments are: // add x and y var result = x + y; Yes, I can see it adds x and y, that's already said by the code itself, why are we adding x and y? What's the "result" used for? I'm going to read the code anyway to review a PR, a summary of what the code already says it does is redundant information to me.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ab_io 1y ago100%. My team started using graphite.dev, which provides AI generated PR descriptions that are so bloated with useless content that I've learned to just ignore them. The issue is they are doing a kind of reverse inference from the code changes to a human-readable description, which doesn't actually capture the intent behind the changes.
- collingreen 1y agoI tell my team that the diff already perfectly describes what changed. The commits and PR are to convey WHY and in what context and what we learned (or should look out for). Putting the "what" in the thing meant for the "why" is using the tools incorrectly.
- kyleee 1y agoYes, that’s the hard thing about having a “what changed” section in the PR template. I agree with you, but generally put a very condensed summary of what changed to fulfill the PR template expectations. Not the worst compromise
- collingreen 1y agoMy PR templates are: - what CONCEPTUALLY changed here and why - a checklist that asserts the author did in fact run their code and the tests and the migrations and other babysitting rules written in blood - explicit lists of database migrations or other changes - explicit lists of cross dependencies - images or video of the change actually working as intended (also patronizing but also because of too many painful failures without it) Generally small startups after initial pmf. I have no idea how to run a big company and pre pmf Im guilty of "all cowboy, all the time" - YMMV
- SAI_Peregrinus 1y agoMy template: 1. What is this change supposed to do? 2. Why is this change needed? 3. How was it tested? 4. Is there anything else reviewers should know? 5. Link to issue: There's no "What changed?" because that's the diff. Explain your intent, why you think it's a good idea, how you know you accomplished your intent, and any future work needed or other concerns noticed while making the change. PR descriptions suffer from the same problem as code comments by beginners: they often just describe the "what" when that's obvious from the code, when the "why" is what's needed. So try very hard to avoid doing that.
- 0x6c6f6c 1y agoI absolutely have used AI to scaffold reproduction scenarios, but I'm still validating everything is actually reproducing the bug I ran into before submitting. It's 90% AI, but that 90% was almost entirely boilerplate and would have taken me a good chunk of time to do for little gain other than the fact I did it.
- shortrounddev2 1y agoWhenever a PM at work "writes" me a 4 paragraph ticket with AI, I make AI read it for me
- derwiki 1y agoI think it’s especially low effort when you can point it at example commit messages you’ve written without emojis and emdashes to “learn” your writing style
- lm28469 1y agoThe best part is that they write the PR summaries in bullet points and then feed them to an LLM to dilute the content over 10x the length of text... waste of time and compute power that generates literally nothing of value
- danudey 1y agoI would love to know how much time and computing power is spent by people who write bullet points and have ChatGPT expand them out to full paragraphs only for every recipient to use ChatGPT to summarize them back down to bullet points.
- bombcar 1y agoCat, I Farted somehow worked out how to become a necessary middleman for every business email ever.
- ManuelKiessling 1y agoWhy have the LLMs „learned“ to write PRs (and other stuff) this way? This style was definitely not mainstream on Github (or Reddit) pre-LLMs, was it? It’s strange how AI style is so easy to spot. If LLMs just follow the style that they encountered most frequently during training, wouldn’t that mean that their style would be especially hard to spot?
- oceanplexian 1y agoLLMs write things in a certain style because that's how the base models are fine tuned before being given to the public. It's not because they can't write PRs indistinguishable from humans, or can't write code without Emojis. It's because they don't want to freak out the general public so they have essentially poisoned the models to stave off regulation a little bit longer.
- dingnuts 1y agothis is WILD speculation without a citation. it would be a fascinating comment if you had one! but without? sounds like bullshit to me...
- array_key_first 1y agoIt is wildly speculative, but it's something I've never considered. If I were making a brave new technology that I knew had power for unprecedented evil, I might gimp it, too.
- alt187 1y agoThis sounds like the most plausible explanation to me. Occam's razor, remember it!
- SamPatt 1y agoI doubt this. I've done AI annotation work on the big models. Part of my job was comparing two model outputs and rating which is better, and using detailed criteria to explain why it's better. The HF part. That's a lot of expensive work they're doing, and ignoring, if they're just later poisoning the models!
- wiseowise 1y agoWhy do you need to use 100% of your brain on a pull request?
- risyachka 1y agoProbably to understand what is going on there in the context of the full system instead of just reading letters and making sure there are no grammar mistakes.
- credit_guy 1y agoYou can absolutely ask the LLM to write a concise and professional commit message, without emojis. It will conform to the request. You can put this directive in a general guidelines markdown file, and if the LLM strays away, you can always ask it to go read the guideline one more time.
- cyrusradfar 1y agoIt seems I'm going to be contrarian here because I really prefer AI-supported (obviously reviewed for accuracy) PR comments over what I had seen before where I'd, often, need to reach out to someone to ask follow up questions on requirements, a link to a ticket, or any number of omissions. I have worked at smaller firms, mostly, early stage (< 50 engineers), and folks are super busy. Having AI support in writing better thoughtful commentary, provide deeper context is a boon. In the end, I'll have to say "it depends" -- you can't just throw slop at people but there's definitely a middle ground where everyone wins.
- nobodywillobsrv 1y agoHow to do simple change on complex projects at the same ROI with LLM?
- schmookeeg 1y agoImagine hand-crafting a PR and fighting through the AI-generated review comments with no cultural support for pushing back. It's like Brandolini's Law but in github.
- MisterTea 1y ago"Bruh, you're supposed to use the AI to read and vet the requests so you can spend more time arguing on the internet about the merits of using AI"
- ComplexSystems 1y agoYou're absolutely right! Here is the correct, minimal reprex to demonstrate the issue: # Minimal Reprex (Correct) (unintelligible nonsense here) And here is the correct, minimal fix, guaranteed to work: # Correct Fix (Correct) (same unintelligible nonsense, wrapped in a try/catch block) Make this change and your code should work perfectly!
- coldtea 1y ago>You're telling me I need to use 100% of my brain, reasoning power, and time to go over your code No, they're expecting you to half-ass it too, and just use AI to review the PR.
- shadyKeystrokes 1y agoAI makes it a game-theory-wise bad move to not defect and still work effective. Ask your chat gpt on how to docial hack your superior to create a impression of being successful.