TomasBM

5 ms·

1.
by TomasBM 3mo ago
That depends on the model and the toolkit it uses. In my experience from using Claude Code (Max, Opus 4.5+) intensely for the past six months, I maybe had 3 instances where the implementation broke functionally. And all of these breaking ch
2.
by TomasBM 3mo ago
This is actually a good idea. I mean, not sure if everyone wants that for their project, and there will surely be plenty of trade-offs. But it would be a very good compromise: You (the maintainer) get only human-generated PRs in the canonic
3.
by TomasBM 3mo ago
Isn't that what I'm already doing? I assume that the author believes that he's right often enough to argue his position(s), but feels dejected without being proven wrong at the end of the argument. But there's another im
4.
by TomasBM 3mo ago
I like this - thanks for sharing!
5.
by TomasBM 3mo ago
Definite agree on having human-based redundant systems. But I think the point the parent commenter made is: if there's not a functional difference in the result (i.e., job satisfies the definition of done), it doesn't matter if
6.
by TomasBM 3mo ago
Other than the obvious, self-reflective question that the author doesn't pose - "what if I'm the one who's wrong?" - I think it's worth arguing if the conditions are right. Because I also like being correct,
7.
by TomasBM 3mo ago
Seems like this policy would apply pretty well regardless of who/what generated the code.
8.
by TomasBM 3mo ago
Well, unless you needed those million copies for whatever reason, that is an example of spam or denial-of-service , regardless of how it's generated. And I'm not disagreeing - it is hard to anticipate what needs verifying, regard
9.
by TomasBM 3mo ago
Good point. Even if you submit small, verifiable and readable changes, you can still overload the review process by submitting too many of them (e.g., 100s of PRs). But I'd argue that some projects [1] could benefit from the speed (and
10.
by TomasBM 3mo ago
I think that's completely fair. There are also plenty of valid personal reasons for refusing to generate code with AI - learning-by-doing and ownership of the result being the main ones, IMO. > everybody wants to let AI do their wor
11.
by TomasBM 3mo ago
If you have some requirements/specifications, and the piece of code fits them, then it runs. Alternatively, if you have some vague idea [1] about what you expect to see/have, and the running code satisfies that idea, then it also
12.
by TomasBM 3mo ago
Current narrative where? I don't see this narrative being more prominent than the "AI won't be displacing jobs because things worked out in the past" counternarrative . For example, only recently has The Economist pub
13.
by TomasBM 3mo ago
Interesting initiative. What are the guiding reasons behind these lists? I can't think of a functional reason for a no-AI policy: if it runs, it runs, regardless of who or what made it. Also, even if you avoid AI-generated slop, you ca
14.
by TomasBM 3mo ago
It's a fair policy. Getting those verbose, AI-authored walls of text is very annoying, especially when you're expected to thoroughly review it. It's like a denial-of-service attack on the human mind. I can only imagine how
15.
by TomasBM 3mo ago
Actually, the replication crisis shows how difficult (or underinvested) the process of reviewing is. Removing this (often very basic) peer review doesn't somehow fix the problem. The solution lies in more thorough reviews and replica
16.
by TomasBM 3mo ago
> I had even proposed and implemented an integration for arXiv Labs that got accepted, but then never merged. I should follow up on that... You definitely should - looks like what I roughly had in mind. Thanks for sharing!
17.
by TomasBM 3mo ago
ArXiv is a good complement to the modern peer review, IMO. As long as someone "vouches" for you, and you adhere to its minimal standards, you're able to post a paper. Other readers can decide whether the paper is worth their
18.
by TomasBM 3mo ago
Unfortunately, I don't think systems thinking alone would help much. One could present the case in favor of Internet age verification to the nth-order effects, while downplaying the effects in the case against. So, in addition to pre
19.
by TomasBM 3mo ago
Why is it psychosis and not lower standards ? While I can understand being skeptical of non-experts' claims that such answers are enough, I don't understand why you call it "psychosis" and not simply naivety or lack o
20.
by TomasBM 3mo ago
I'm not always a fan of the squiggles, but I can appreciate the UI pattern. It's definitely one of the more intuitive and recognizable visual markers for "something's wrong with this word".
21.
by TomasBM 3mo ago
Isn't that bias just legitimized by having culture fitness criteria in hiring?
22.
by TomasBM 3mo ago
Your scenario is confusingly formulated, but it ultimately deals with moral risk. If you suspect that it's fraud, you should seriously consider whether you want to be a part of it, even if you can't prove the fraud. Examples are c
23.
by TomasBM 3mo ago
Do you have a specific example of a wasteful STEM research project that was cut? My (perhaps wrong) impression was that wastefulness was given as the reason for making the cuts, but that the cuts were done broadly and indiscriminately [1]
24.
by TomasBM 3mo ago
No disagreement there. I would even argue that anything that enables broad-area targetting since the invention of the Maxim machine gun and artillery would qualify as a weapon of mass destruction . In an ideal world, the first machine gun
25.
by TomasBM 3mo ago
You're interpreting the claims more strongly than they were presented, IMO. > One of its premises is that The Rich are some cohesive group There doesn't have to be a fully cohesive group of an entire class for there to be negat
26.
by TomasBM 3mo ago
Can confirm. From my experience, since December 2025, state-of-the-art models can replace a lot of need for junior, medior or senior developers. This meant that, in my example and given the same scope, one junior person with AI could easily
27.
by TomasBM 3mo ago
The difference is in "active"/intelligent versus "passive"/dumb targetting that's performed by the machine. The missile, once fired, has the general vicinity (if not the exact position) of the target and i
28.
Ask HN: What technical things are worth celebrating?
1 points by TomasBM 5mo ago|1 comments
29.
by TomasBM 5mo ago
Look, I'm not even claiming that piracy is a good term for it, or that the association between theft and copying wasn't pushed in pro-IP campaigns. But for the past 20 (or 30?) years, piracy has been the word everyone uses for t
30.
by TomasBM 5mo ago
It's not necessarily incompatible: authors can make money in ways that don't depend on enforcing IP or even the number of books sold. For example, Patreon, Kickstarter, government subsidies, payment for number of books written, gr

More ›