3 ms·

Not insane at all. Just a very useful shortcut. Not everyone wants to move fast and break shit.

• pixel_popping 6mo ago
  I still think it's insane, why would you care about the "origin" of the code as long as there is a human accountable (that you can ban anyway)?
  • 59nadir 6mo ago
    Because you don't want to deal with people who can't write their own code. If they can, the rule will do nothing to stop them from contributing. It'll only matter if they simply couldn't make their contribution without LLMs.
    • pixel_popping 6mo ago
      So tomorrow, if a model genuinely find a bunch of real vulnerabilities, you just would ignore them? that makes no sense.
      • 59nadir 6mo ago
        An LLM finding problems in code is not the same at all as someone using it to contribute code they couldn't write or haven't written themselves to a project. A report stating "There is a bug/security issue here" is not itself something I have to maintain, it's something I can react to and write code to fix, then I have to maintain that code.
        • seba_dos1 6mo ago
          Well, until you start getting dozens of generated reports that you take your time to review just to find out that they're all plausible-looking bullshit about non-issues. We already had that happening with other kinds of automated tooling, but at least it used to be easier to detect by quick skimming.
  • streetfighter64 6mo ago
    If your doctor told you he used an ouija board to find your diagnosis, would you care about the origin of the diagnosis or just trust that he'll be accountable for it?
    • pixel_popping 6mo ago
      If the Ouija board was powered by Opus, who knows :D
      • streetfighter64 6mo ago
        Now who's insane? ;) > Why would you care about the "origin" of the [diagnosis] as long as there is a human accountable?
  • jeremyjh 6mo ago
    Because they aren’t accountable - after it is merged only I am. And why would I want to go back and forth with an LLM through PR comments when I could just talk to the agent myself in real time? Anytime I want to work through a pile of slop I can ask for one, but I don’t work that way. I work with the agent to create plans first and refine them, and the author of a PR who couldn’t do that adds nothing.
    • Paracompact 6mo ago
      > I work with the agent to create plans first and refine them, and the author of a PR who couldn’t do that adds nothing. As someone who has been using AI extensively lately, this is my preferred way of doing serious projects with them: Let them create the plan, help them refine it, let them rip; then scrutinize their diffs, fight back on the parts I don't like or don't trust; rinse and repeat until commit. Yet I assume this would still be unacceptable to most anti-AI projects, because 90%+ of the committed code was "written by the AI." > why would I want to go back and forth with an LLM through PR comments when I could just talk to the agent myself in real time? Presumably for the same reason you go back and forth with humans through PR comments even when you could just code it yourself in real time. That reason being, the individual on the other end of the PR should be saving you time. It's still hard work contributing quality MRs, even with AI.
      • jeremyjh 6mo ago
        I don’t have a problem working with contributors who use AI like you described. But this thread is about working with people who could not do the work on their own. So they cannot do what you described, and they cannot save me any time, they can only waste it.
        • Paracompact 6mo ago
          Fair enough, that makes sense. I wish more (on both sides of the aisle) were open-minded to the difference.