6 ms·

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

by nbardy 1y ago

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 ago
  He must of dropped connection while chatGPT was generating his HN comment
  - Uhhrrr 1y ago
    "must have"
- latexr 1y ago
  Considering their profile, I’d say it’s probably sincere.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- jurgenaut23 1y ago
  Ahahah
- thatjoeoverthr 1y ago
  His agent hit what we in the biz call “max tokens”
skrebbel 1y ago
Hahahahah well done :dart-emoji:
footy 1y ago
did AI write this comment?
- kacesensitive 1y ago
  You’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 ago
    This definitely is ai generated LOL
rkozik1989 1y ago
So 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 ago
  You can just look at the analytics to see if the feature is broken. /s
i80and 1y ago
Please be doing a bit
- lelandfe 1y ago
  As for the first question, about AI possibly truncating my comments,
dyauspitr 1y ago
Satire? Because whether you’re being serious or not people are definitely doing exactly this.
dickersnoodle 1y ago
One Furby codes and a second one reviews...
- shermantanktop 1y ago
  Let'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 ago
  This is such a good idea, the ultimate solution is connecting the furbies to CI.
latexr 1y ago
This 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 ago
    Just 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 ago
If 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 ago
When I picture a team using their AI to both write and review PRs, I think of the "obama medal award" meme
athrowaway3z 1y ago
If 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 ago
AIs 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 ago
    As 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

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

by nbardy 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

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 ago
He must of dropped connection while chatGPT was generating his HN comment
- Uhhrrr 1y ago
  "must have"
latexr 1y ago
Considering their profile, I’d say it’s probably sincere.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
jurgenaut23 1y ago
Ahahah
thatjoeoverthr 1y ago
His agent hit what we in the biz call “max tokens”

skrebbel 1y ago

Hahahahah well done :dart-emoji:

footy 1y ago

did AI write this comment?

kacesensitive 1y ago
You’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 ago
  This definitely is ai generated LOL

rkozik1989 1y ago

So 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 ago
You can just look at the analytics to see if the feature is broken. /s

i80and 1y ago

Please be doing a bit

lelandfe 1y ago
As for the first question, about AI possibly truncating my comments,

dyauspitr 1y ago

Satire? Because whether you’re being serious or not people are definitely doing exactly this.

dickersnoodle 1y ago

One Furby codes and a second one reviews...

shermantanktop 1y ago
Let'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 ago
This is such a good idea, the ultimate solution is connecting the furbies to CI.

latexr 1y ago

This 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 ago
  Just 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 ago

If 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 ago

When I picture a team using their AI to both write and review PRs, I think of the "obama medal award" meme

athrowaway3z 1y ago

If 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 ago

AIs 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 ago
  As 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