5 ms·

How is OP using Claude relevant?

by red_hare 7mo ago

DeepYogurt 7mo ago
maintenance burden
gritzko 7mo ago
OK for prototyping. Not OK for prod use if noone actually read it line by line.
- odvcencio 7mo ago
  ii am trying to not take issue with this comment because im aware of the huge stigma around ai generated code. i needed this project so i made it for my use case and had to build on top of it. the only way to ensure quality is to read it all line by line. if you give me code that you yourself have not reviewed i will not review it for you.
- znpy 7mo ago
  That ship has sailed, man…
  - overfeed 7mo ago
    No it has not - if it had, there'd be no need to shout down folk who disagree. Not everyone buys into the inevitabilism. Why should I read code "author" didn't bother to write?
- atonse 7mo ago
  Sorry but these are just not accurate as blanket statements anymore, given how good the models have gotten. As other similar projects have pointed out, if you have a good test suite and a way for the model to validate its correctness, you can get very good results. And you can continue to iterate, optimize, code review, etc.
- nickysielicki 7mo ago
  I’m just curious, what would need to happen for you to change your opinion about this? Are you basically of the opinion that it’s not good enough today, never will be good enough in the future, and we should just wind back the clock 3 years and pretend these tools don’t exist? It feels to me like a lot of this is dogma. If the code is broken or needs more testing, that can be solved. But it’s orthogonal: the LLM can be used to implement the unit testing and fuzz testing that would beat this library into shape, if it’s not already there. It’s not about adding a human touch, it’s about pursuing completeness. And that’s true for all new projects going from zero to one, you have to ask yourself whether the author drove it to completeness or not. That’s always been true. You want people to hedge their projects with disclaimers that it probably sucks and isn’t production worthy. You want them to fess up to the fact that they cheated, or something. But they’re giving it away for free! You can just not use it if you don’t want to! They owe you nothing, not even a note in the readme. And you don’t deserve more or less hacker points depending on whether you used a tool to generate the code or whether you wrote it by hand, because hacker points don’t exist, because the value of all of this is (and always will be) subjective. To the extent that the modern tools and models can’t oneshot anything, they’re going to keep improving. And it doesn’t seem to me like there’s any identifiable binary event on the horizon that would make you change your mind about this. You’re just against LLMs, and that’s the way it is, and there’s nothing that anyone can do to change your mind? I mean this in the nicest way possible: the world is just going to move on without you.
  - acedTrex 7mo ago
    This might be true, but we can continue to try and require the communities we have been part of for years to act a certain way regarding disclosures. If the community majority changes it mind then so be it. But the fight will continue for quite some time until that is decided.
    - nickysielicki 7mo ago
      There never was a cohesive generic open source community. There are no meaningful group norms. This was and always will be a fiction. I’m tempted to just start putting co-authored-by: Claude in every commit I make, even the ones that I write by hand, just to intentionally alienate people like you. The best guardrails are linters, autoformatters, type checkers, static analyzers, fuzzers, pre-commit rules, unit tests and coverage requirements, microbenchmarks, etc. If you genuinely care about open source code quality, you should be investing in improving these tools and deploying them in the projects you rely on. If the LLMs are truly writing bad or broken code, it will show up here clearly. But if you can’t rephrase your criticism of a patch in terms of things flagged by tools like those, and you’re not claiming there’s something architecturally wrong with the way it was designed, you don’t have a criticism at all. You’re just whining.
- selridge 7mo ago
  Pack it in everyone, the “OK for prod use” guy has spoken.
IshKebab 7mo ago
AI often produces nonsense that a human wouldn't. If a project was written using AI the chances that it is a useless mess are significantly higher than if it was written by a human.
ks2048 7mo ago
People should say what models/tools they used in even show the prompts.
- selridge 7mo ago
  "show the prompts" What would the prompt for this look like?
  - nickysielicki 7mo ago
    never mind the fact that the model is constantly reseeding itself against the files it’s reading from your working directory, so the prompts are useless on their own.
- maleldil 7mo ago
  Showing the prompts is not feasible when using agentic coding tools. I suppose one could persist all chat logs ever used in the project, but is that even useful?
  - ks2048 7mo ago
    I think it would be useful. I see lots of comments like "it one-shotted this" and am curious if they just had to write one sentence or many pages of instructions.
up2isomorphism 7mo ago
Because OP obviously downplayed this important fact, which typically shows lower quality/less tested code.
g947o 7mo ago
Because the entire README doesn't even mention it, and it is an important factor in deciding whether it is ready for production use. I, for one, am definitely not going to use this project for anything serious unless I have thoroughly reviewed the code myself. Prototyping is fine.
- selridge 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - g947o 7mo ago
    Dude, you know you are trolling. There is a material difference between whether you used VSCode or vim to write the code, and if you personally wrote or reviewed any code at all.
    - selridge 7mo ago
      I'm not really trolling. I'm trying to push people to consider that the world is already in a state where "I used AI" is neither binary nor dispositive. I think we're used to a 2023 to mid-2025 framing where outside of some narrow, highly structured cases, the code is garbage. If that's still true as a binary now, it won't be for long. As the robot likes to say, some of these changes are "in flight".

How is OP using Claude relevant?

DeepYogurt 7mo ago

maintenance burden

gritzko 7mo ago

OK for prototyping. Not OK for prod use if noone actually read it line by line.

odvcencio 7mo ago
ii am trying to not take issue with this comment because im aware of the huge stigma around ai generated code. i needed this project so i made it for my use case and had to build on top of it. the only way to ensure quality is to read it all line by line. if you give me code that you yourself have not reviewed i will not review it for you.
znpy 7mo ago
That ship has sailed, man…
- overfeed 7mo ago
  No it has not - if it had, there'd be no need to shout down folk who disagree. Not everyone buys into the inevitabilism. Why should I read code "author" didn't bother to write?
atonse 7mo ago
Sorry but these are just not accurate as blanket statements anymore, given how good the models have gotten. As other similar projects have pointed out, if you have a good test suite and a way for the model to validate its correctness, you can get very good results. And you can continue to iterate, optimize, code review, etc.
nickysielicki 7mo ago
I’m just curious, what would need to happen for you to change your opinion about this? Are you basically of the opinion that it’s not good enough today, never will be good enough in the future, and we should just wind back the clock 3 years and pretend these tools don’t exist? It feels to me like a lot of this is dogma. If the code is broken or needs more testing, that can be solved. But it’s orthogonal: the LLM can be used to implement the unit testing and fuzz testing that would beat this library into shape, if it’s not already there. It’s not about adding a human touch, it’s about pursuing completeness. And that’s true for all new projects going from zero to one, you have to ask yourself whether the author drove it to completeness or not. That’s always been true. You want people to hedge their projects with disclaimers that it probably sucks and isn’t production worthy. You want them to fess up to the fact that they cheated, or something. But they’re giving it away for free! You can just not use it if you don’t want to! They owe you nothing, not even a note in the readme. And you don’t deserve more or less hacker points depending on whether you used a tool to generate the code or whether you wrote it by hand, because hacker points don’t exist, because the value of all of this is (and always will be) subjective. To the extent that the modern tools and models can’t oneshot anything, they’re going to keep improving. And it doesn’t seem to me like there’s any identifiable binary event on the horizon that would make you change your mind about this. You’re just against LLMs, and that’s the way it is, and there’s nothing that anyone can do to change your mind? I mean this in the nicest way possible: the world is just going to move on without you.
- acedTrex 7mo ago
  This might be true, but we can continue to try and require the communities we have been part of for years to act a certain way regarding disclosures. If the community majority changes it mind then so be it. But the fight will continue for quite some time until that is decided.
  - nickysielicki 7mo ago
    There never was a cohesive generic open source community. There are no meaningful group norms. This was and always will be a fiction. I’m tempted to just start putting co-authored-by: Claude in every commit I make, even the ones that I write by hand, just to intentionally alienate people like you. The best guardrails are linters, autoformatters, type checkers, static analyzers, fuzzers, pre-commit rules, unit tests and coverage requirements, microbenchmarks, etc. If you genuinely care about open source code quality, you should be investing in improving these tools and deploying them in the projects you rely on. If the LLMs are truly writing bad or broken code, it will show up here clearly. But if you can’t rephrase your criticism of a patch in terms of things flagged by tools like those, and you’re not claiming there’s something architecturally wrong with the way it was designed, you don’t have a criticism at all. You’re just whining.
selridge 7mo ago
Pack it in everyone, the “OK for prod use” guy has spoken.

IshKebab 7mo ago

AI often produces nonsense that a human wouldn't. If a project was written using AI the chances that it is a useless mess are significantly higher than if it was written by a human.

ks2048 7mo ago

People should say what models/tools they used in even show the prompts.

selridge 7mo ago
"show the prompts" What would the prompt for this look like?
- nickysielicki 7mo ago
  never mind the fact that the model is constantly reseeding itself against the files it’s reading from your working directory, so the prompts are useless on their own.
maleldil 7mo ago
Showing the prompts is not feasible when using agentic coding tools. I suppose one could persist all chat logs ever used in the project, but is that even useful?
- ks2048 7mo ago
  I think it would be useful. I see lots of comments like "it one-shotted this" and am curious if they just had to write one sentence or many pages of instructions.

up2isomorphism 7mo ago

Because OP obviously downplayed this important fact, which typically shows lower quality/less tested code.

g947o 7mo ago

Because the entire README doesn't even mention it, and it is an important factor in deciding whether it is ready for production use. I, for one, am definitely not going to use this project for anything serious unless I have thoroughly reviewed the code myself. Prototyping is fine.

selridge 7mo ago
[flagged]
- g947o 7mo ago
  Dude, you know you are trolling. There is a material difference between whether you used VSCode or vim to write the code, and if you personally wrote or reviewed any code at all.
  - selridge 7mo ago
    I'm not really trolling. I'm trying to push people to consider that the world is already in a state where "I used AI" is neither binary nor dispositive. I think we're used to a 2023 to mid-2025 framing where outside of some narrow, highly structured cases, the code is garbage. If that's still true as a binary now, it won't be for long. As the robot likes to say, some of these changes are "in flight".