3 ms·

Oh wow that is fun. Also if the writeup isn’t misrepresenting the situation, then I feel like it’s actually a good point - if there’s an easy drop-in speed-up,

Oh wow that is fun. Also if the writeup isn’t misrepresenting the situation, then I feel like it’s actually a good point - if there’s an easy drop-in speed-up, why does it matter whether it’s suggest by a human or an LLM agent?

throwaway29473 9mo ago
Good first issues are curated to help humans onboard.
- hannahstrawbrry 9mo ago
  I think this is what worries me the most about coding agents- I'm not convinced they'll be able to do my job anytime soon but most of the things I use it for are the types of tasks I would have previously set aside for an intern at my old company. Hard to imagine myself getting into coding without those easy problems that teach a newbie a lot but are trivial for a mid-level engineer.
  - rune-dev 9mo ago
    The other side of the coin is half the time you do set aside that simple task for a newbie, they paste it into an LLM and learn nothing now.
    - nkrisc 9mo ago
      Well there’s not much you can do to prevent people from choosing sabotage their own education. They have to want to learn.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
avaer 9mo ago
It matters because if the code is illegal, stolen, contains a backdoor, or whatever, you can jail a human author after the fact to disincentivize such naughty behavior.
input_sh 9mo ago
Not everything is about being 100% efficient. LLM didn't discover this issue, developers found it. Instead of fixing it themselves, they intentionally turned the problem into an issue, left it open for a new human contributor to pick up, and tagged it as such. If everything was about efficiency, the issue wouldn't have been open to begin with, as writing it (https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/issues/31130 https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/issues/31130) and fending off LLM attempts at fixing them absolutely took more effort than if they were to fix it themselves (https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/pull/31132/changes https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/pull/31132/changes).
- minimaxir 9mo ago
  And then there's the actual discussion in #31130 which came to the conclusion that the performance increase had uncertain gains and wasn't worth it. In this case, the bot explicitly ignored that by only operating off the initial issue.
ivirshup 9mo ago
The issue is misrepresenting the situation. One of those operations makes a row-major array, the other makes a col-major array. Downstream functions will have different performance based on which is passed.
canjobear 9mo ago
It doesn’t represent the situation accurately. There’s a whole thread where humans debate the performance optimization and come to the conclusion that it’s a wash but a good project for an amateur human to look into.

throwaway29473 9mo ago

Good first issues are curated to help humans onboard.

hannahstrawbrry 9mo ago
I think this is what worries me the most about coding agents- I'm not convinced they'll be able to do my job anytime soon but most of the things I use it for are the types of tasks I would have previously set aside for an intern at my old company. Hard to imagine myself getting into coding without those easy problems that teach a newbie a lot but are trivial for a mid-level engineer.
- rune-dev 9mo ago
  The other side of the coin is half the time you do set aside that simple task for a newbie, they paste it into an LLM and learn nothing now.
  - nkrisc 9mo ago
    Well there’s not much you can do to prevent people from choosing sabotage their own education. They have to want to learn.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

avaer 9mo ago

It matters because if the code is illegal, stolen, contains a backdoor, or whatever, you can jail a human author after the fact to disincentivize such naughty behavior.

input_sh 9mo ago

Not everything is about being 100% efficient. LLM didn't discover this issue, developers found it. Instead of fixing it themselves, they intentionally turned the problem into an issue, left it open for a new human contributor to pick up, and tagged it as such. If everything was about efficiency, the issue wouldn't have been open to begin with, as writing it (https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/issues/31130 https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/issues/31130) and fending off LLM attempts at fixing them absolutely took more effort than if they were to fix it themselves (https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/pull/31132/changes https://github.com/matplotlib/matplotlib/pull/31132/changes).

minimaxir 9mo ago
And then there's the actual discussion in #31130 which came to the conclusion that the performance increase had uncertain gains and wasn't worth it. In this case, the bot explicitly ignored that by only operating off the initial issue.

ivirshup 9mo ago

The issue is misrepresenting the situation. One of those operations makes a row-major array, the other makes a col-major array. Downstream functions will have different performance based on which is passed.

canjobear 9mo ago

It doesn’t represent the situation accurately. There’s a whole thread where humans debate the performance optimization and come to the conclusion that it’s a wash but a good project for an amateur human to look into.