Post

Bozhidar Batsov (a.k.a. Bug)
@batsov.net

One of the many joys of using AI for programming is the creation of huge PRs on complex topics that the authors barely understand, but still suggest "because they work". Here's a great example from #OCaml github.com/ocaml/ocaml/... Kudos to OCaml's maintainers for handling this so gracefully.

github.comDWARF support for macOS and Linux by joelreymont · Pull Request #14369 · ocaml/ocamlDWARF v5 Debugging Support for OCaml Native Compiler This PR adds DWARF v5 debug information to the OCaml native compiler, allowing proper source-level debugging in GDB and LLDB. What's Impleme...

46 reposts174 likes

aran 🏳️‍⚧️
@aranaya.bsky.social

> For example, a few days ago you sent a PR that was a complete waste of our collective maintenance time [...] we wasted this time, and you never apologized. There must be a one-strike policy for AI-generated PRs. Open source operates on people respecting each other's time and effort.

◻◊Happy
@stupidcomputer.bsky.social

"Here's the AI-written copyright analysis..." after people point out the possible problems of and it not being clear how the copyright situation is, should probably be the moment a person gets blocked from any further contribution to a project. The maintainers have way more patience than I would

Liam Blizard
@blizard.io

That was the thing that floored me. Used to work with a guy that would interject in a slack conversations about software engineering and dump 3000 word AI written responses that he thought was a mic drop.

Radan
@radan.dev

AI coding has revealed just how many people in our industry don’t appreciate that for any long lived code the cost of initial implementaion is absolutely dwarfed by the cost of maintenance. So much that for long lived projects we can consider: cost of code = cost of maintenance.

Radan
@radan.dev

It also manifests as "I can vibe code X in a weekend", usually written by people that never shipped a feature to users completely by themselves. :)

Gary Trakhman
@gtrak.bsky.social

What a colossal waste of time for everyone involved. I use LLMs for code generation, too, but if I get a plausible implementation out of it in a day, I expect to take about 4x as long reviewing it, refactoring it, and making it more robust, and then I still don't entirely trust it.

Bozhidar Batsov (a.k.a. Bug)
@batsov.net

I totally get it. I also use LLMs from time to time, but I'd never commit something or file a PR unless I understand fully the code there. From me the LLM-generated code is just a starting point. Working code is often not the same as good/clear/maintainable/performant/secure/robust code.

SrslyJosh
@srslyjosh.bsky.social

This doesn’t seem like much of a timesaver. Personally, I’ve committed to just writing the code, even if it’s frustrating or boring. Doing the work myself is much more likely to improve my skills and lead to insights that save me time and energy in the future.

Victor Shepelev 🇺🇦
@zverok.bsky.social

I googled the guy, he is... special. joel.id/resume/ This looks like a joke/AI-generated fake resume (30 yrs of experience?.. CTO of blockchain startup, drone hardware developer IN KYIV?..), but his digital footprint strongly corroborates it. Reddit, 18 (sic) yrs ago, on him dropping some idea:

Sunhawk
@sunhawk.bsky.social

"Learned to run a company, as well as the dangers of micromanagement. Pivoted. Killed the project after finding no uptake from users and running out of money." Lmao 🤣

austin (eeek!/ackkk! 👻)
@thebadcode.com

My compromise is that you can use LLM tools to write code, but if you then submit it for review, anyone can demand "explain this bit right here" and if you don't know, your keyboard gets taken away for life