eranation

5 ms·

31.
by eranation 4mo ago
Asking contributors to first make sure there is an approved requirement before creating a PR sounds like a great idea regardless of the use of LLM. But another issue is - AI disclosure (agent, model etc). I'm sure others tried similar
32.
by eranation 4mo ago
wow, this is a life goal.
33.
by eranation 4mo ago
Ha, thanks for the reply!
34.
by eranation 4mo ago
Am I the only one who slightly miss the pelican on a bike? It was a nice novelty... of course I could make one myself, but I became conditioned to expect one for every new model. Other than his great writing on AI, it became part of the pac
35.
by eranation 4mo ago
Was this built using https://vorpus.github.io/performativeUI/ ? It hits every AI generated landing page trope possible. Or was it done ironically?
36.
by eranation 4mo ago
Yeah, I used that term loosely, for me FOMO is everything I don't know. It's not a FOMO framework to you (but your comment definitely adds to my FOMO, in a totally positive way I mean...)
37.
by eranation 4mo ago
Surprised it wasn't on the homepage yet, my X / LinkedIn feed is non stop about it. I would love to hear from someone who actually played with all the FOMO harnesses / frameworks and actually did a first impression comparison
38.
by eranation 4mo ago
My Claude feels personally attacked.
39.
by eranation 4mo ago
100%
40.
by eranation 4mo ago
My prediction is that the review / human in the loop part will become much bigger and more discussed. Current transformer technology will either plateau or eventually we will get to that singularity bracket. (I was a skeptic once but a
41.
by eranation 4mo ago
My honest take? Hackers and builders value not just the result but also the journey. There is a feeling that AI is a cheat code to get to the result without having gone through the journey. I am fully on that side, and like everyone I’m usi
42.
by eranation 4mo ago
Thanks for posting it here! I'm the maintainer, please let me know if anyone has any feedback.
43.
by eranation 4mo ago
Realising in a recent benchmark that gpt-5-mini gives better results on some tasks than gpt-5.4-mini and event gpt-5 or gpt-5.5
44.
by eranation 4mo ago
So. Dependabot (and renovate) do have "cooldowns" supported, just need to set them up. For dependabot it's as simple as cooldown.default-days: 1 There are security researchers (that don't have cooldowns) that usually det
45.
by eranation 4mo ago
Awesome! Will add it to depsguard.com this weekend.
46.
by eranation 4mo ago
Tried it a while back and my team asked me to remove it. But maybe they improved since then.
47.
by eranation 4mo ago
Thanks! Gloomy yet important read.
48.
by eranation 4mo ago
Managed to get it to work with those actually. (Had to change the code of course)
49.
by eranation 4mo ago
Even if this was true, it’s hard to believe, and written a bit like an ad. Eg no vendor would get me to write a comment like this. All the more so, I tried CR and my team asked me to remove it. Maybe they got better but it’s a bit weird to
50.
by eranation 4mo ago
gpt-5-mini and gpt-5.5 (had to tweak the code a bit to make it work) Surprisingly not as big of a difference as one would hope. It turns out that smarter models are more conservative. Smarter model / More thinking = slightly worse reca
51.
by eranation 4mo ago
Yep. Similarly - you can predict with 99.9% accuracy if a Volcano will erupt today by using a rock that has "No" written on it.
52.
by eranation 4mo ago
All this singularity trajectory is really interesting. If they manage to build a model that is capable of building the next version of Claude (model and tooling) - wouldn't it be their interest at some point to keep it to themselves? I
53.
by eranation 4mo ago
Ran it on a subset of 10 of the 50 PRs in this benchmark https://codereview.withmartian.com - very good recall (~74%, e.g. found a lot of the golden issues) - not so good precision (~12%, e.g. lots of false positives) - the prec
54.
by eranation 4mo ago
Developers should definitely use whatever tool they use to review the code they (or the tool) just wrote. We have a skill that does this in a loop - spin subagents, review (based on our coding standards), triage the review in another subage
55.
by eranation 4mo ago
Nothing against coderabbit or SaaS specifically, but this was one of the reasons I stopped using it https://kudelskisecurity.com/research/how-we-exploited-coder... It's very easy to build a basic code review tool
56.
by eranation 4mo ago
Not sure why you got downvoted, and I have nothing against CodeRabbit, but this comment feels a bit like a paid ad :) How do you see CodeRabbit against other AI code review solutions? E.g. cubic.dev, Qodo, Graphite, Greptile, Baz, Augment C
57.
by eranation 4mo ago
I wonder how they do against this benchmark (not that I vetted this benchmark... but still interesting to know...) https://codereview.withmartian.com
58.
by eranation 4mo ago
If anyone wonders how much it can cost to run scans like this on your entire codebase with SOTA models: https://ai-cost-calculator.arnica.io tl;dr - not that it's surprising, but it's not cheap, especially if you want
59.
by eranation 4mo ago
We actually created a calculator to estimate scanning costs (including whether you do this continuously or not) https://ai-cost-calculator.arnica.io It's an estimate, so it might be wrong, but it gives the ballpark based on
60.
by eranation 4mo ago
It's just like being in love. No one can tell you your in love, you just know it.

More ›