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 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 2 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

acedTrex an hour ago | parent [-]

> There never was a cohesive generic open source community. There are no meaningful group norms. This was and always will be a fiction.

It's always been a bit splintered, but it was generally composed of 95%+ of people that know how to program. That is no longer the case in any sense.

> 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.

I mean it sounds like you are already using claude for everything so this is probably a bit of a noop lol.

> 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.

No, because doing that requires MORE rigor and work than what an LLM driven project had put into it. That difference in effort/work is not tenable, its shallow work being shown, its shallow criticisms thrown at it.

All sense of depth and integrity is gone and killed.

	▲	nickysielicki a minute ago \| parent [-]
		Is that what this was all about? Depth and integrity? Rigor and hard work? Because I thought it was all about writing useful programs for computers.

▲

gritzko an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I tried to control LLM output quality by different means, including fuzzing. Had several cases when LLM "cheated" on that too. So, I have my own shades and grades of being sure the code is not BS.

▲

lenkite 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I see this as the same argument as saying GMO label not needed, no need to mention artificial flavours in food, etc.

I mean this in the nicest way possible: the world is just going to insist that AI generated output is marked clearly as AI produced output.

Not sure whether giving a LICENSE even makes sense.