3 ms·

Debian is open source, there is no incentive to be "responsible for it", oh poor me, someone got a bug. If it's paid for through a job your argument is sound.

LoganDark 28d ago
"Responsible for it" just means nobody has to tolerate shitty patches even if the reason they're shitty is because you neglected to pay attention to them. And if you blatantly fail to understand your own code or engage with reviewers, nobody has to trust that your LLM knew any better.
- daveguy 28d ago
  Well said. No one should trust an llm without verification/validation. They're just not good enough to do that and they have no sense of responsibility or ability to take it themselves. LLMs are empty.
swiftcoder 28d ago
> Debian is open source, there is no incentive to be "responsible for it" Sure there is. Contributing to open source is a privilege, not a right. Abuse it, and find yourself unwelcome as a future contributor
thi2 28d ago
How is it different to hand written code if the author doesnt care?
- onesandofgrain 28d ago
  read my fucking comment again
  - Biganon 27d ago
    Read the HN guidelines again
victorbjorklund 28d ago
You can make the exact same argument with code written by humans. And if you were right we should see shitty bad code in open source projects like Linux, Postgres, etc. We don’t.
- onesandofgrain 28d ago
  you completely missed my point, but no matter, it's all ai bot shillers at this point here anyways. enjoy your ai slop.
Grombobulous 28d ago
Basically what you’re saying is that anything that exists outside of capitalist incentive structures isn’t allowed to have standards. When I am at home practicing my musical instrument or learning to paint, those aren’t paid activities, so I can’t demand high standards for myself. When Habitat for Humanity is looking for volunteers to do electrical and plumbing on homes, they have to allow unlicensed random folks do it. This is not how life works at all.
- onesandofgrain 28d ago
  you naive idealist

LoganDark 28d ago

"Responsible for it" just means nobody has to tolerate shitty patches even if the reason they're shitty is because you neglected to pay attention to them. And if you blatantly fail to understand your own code or engage with reviewers, nobody has to trust that your LLM knew any better.

daveguy 28d ago
Well said. No one should trust an llm without verification/validation. They're just not good enough to do that and they have no sense of responsibility or ability to take it themselves. LLMs are empty.

swiftcoder 28d ago

> Debian is open source, there is no incentive to be "responsible for it" Sure there is. Contributing to open source is a privilege, not a right. Abuse it, and find yourself unwelcome as a future contributor

thi2 28d ago

How is it different to hand written code if the author doesnt care?

onesandofgrain 28d ago
read my fucking comment again
- Biganon 27d ago
  Read the HN guidelines again

victorbjorklund 28d ago

You can make the exact same argument with code written by humans. And if you were right we should see shitty bad code in open source projects like Linux, Postgres, etc. We don’t.

onesandofgrain 28d ago
you completely missed my point, but no matter, it's all ai bot shillers at this point here anyways. enjoy your ai slop.

Grombobulous 28d ago

Basically what you’re saying is that anything that exists outside of capitalist incentive structures isn’t allowed to have standards. When I am at home practicing my musical instrument or learning to paint, those aren’t paid activities, so I can’t demand high standards for myself. When Habitat for Humanity is looking for volunteers to do electrical and plumbing on homes, they have to allow unlicensed random folks do it. This is not how life works at all.

onesandofgrain 28d ago
you naive idealist