yarn_

8 ms·

1.
by yarn_ 2mo ago
I genuinely cannot think of something less interesting than the ebbs and flows of whatever bryan johnson is doing
2.
by yarn_ 2mo ago
First of many I hope, god bless.
3.
by yarn_ 4mo ago
thank you for this truly deranged comment
4.
by yarn_ 4mo ago
Because they're for two completely different domains?
5.
by yarn_ 4mo ago
as a fan of him this rationale did not make a shred of sense "Both parties can have their preference" - this was already true of C where you can just turn enable unused variable warnings or turn them into hard errors, this has not
6.
by yarn_ 4mo ago
Well its also just idiotic in terms of how some huge number of people write code. I know I'll need so-and-so import, so i write it at the top of the file before i even start, I press ctrl-s and it dissapears... I honestly laughed out l
7.
by yarn_ 4mo ago
I really don't understand why people feel the need to include this stuff. I am not saying that out of some anti-AI sentiment, i just genuinely don't understand how peoiple have so little taste as to think it adds to their writing.
8.
by yarn_ 4mo ago
Me when I have literally no idea what im talking about
9.
by yarn_ 4mo ago
> I was a little shocked that they could get it fully working in a week to be honest It shouldn't be shocking, it was done using only compute, and the codebase is owned by the company who owns the compute, you literally just turn th
10.
by yarn_ 4mo ago
> I think much of the world of software has become incredibly myopic. > usually taking the easy way out is just deferring the costs to your future. Problem is that those costs accrue interest. This sums up my thoughts perfectly lately
11.
by yarn_ 5mo ago
sad but true
12.
by yarn_ 5mo ago
>the devil lies in the details This is true, but perhaps not uniquely so, when compared to platform dependence of the standard libary already. File semantics, sync primitive gaurantees and implementations, timers and timer resolutions, e
13.
by yarn_ 5mo ago
>People disagree on a bunch of extremely politicized topics within the realm of nutrition and health which is famously complex and hard to understand even for experts in the field. Yup, I'm "staggered".
14.
by yarn_ 5mo ago
>We don't hire juniors and throw them boilerplate and tiny bugs while expecting them to learn along the way ad hoc Huh? This is exactly what almost everyone does
15.
by yarn_ 5mo ago
Another good example of "the people writing good code with AI are the people who could have done it regardless"
16.
by yarn_ 6mo ago
>It seems we've uncovered several feasible answers to your question of "why would you want that?" Fair enough
17.
by yarn_ 6mo ago
Right but these are bad actors, roughly speaking, so why should I expect them to disclose the fact that they're using LLMs to me? If someone is repeatedly sending me slop to look at I'll block them whether or not they tell me an L
18.
by yarn_ 6mo ago
This mirrors my thoughts.
19.
by yarn_ 6mo ago
I don't see what the "deceptive practices" would be though - you can just look at the code being submitted, there isn't really the same background truth involved as with "did the thing in this video actually happen?
20.
by yarn_ 6mo ago
Yep other people pointed this out as well, this makes sense to me.
21.
by yarn_ 6mo ago
Well if an agent is submitting it I'm just going to reject it, thats no problem. "Just send me the prompt".
22.
by yarn_ 6mo ago
I mean sure, in the same sense that law enforcement would be a lot easier if all the criminals just came to the police station and gave themselves up Again though, people can trivially hide the fact they used an LLM to whatever extent, so w
23.
by yarn_ 6mo ago
The human who submitted the PR is 100% accountable either way, thats partly my point. Disclosing AI has its purposes, I agree, but its not like we can reliably get everyone to do it anyway, which also leads me to thinking this way.
24.
by yarn_ 6mo ago
Sure, the point about LLM "mistakes" etc being harder to detect is valid, although I'm not entirely sure how to compare this with human hard to detect mistakes. If anything I find LLM code shortcomings often a bit easier to s
25.
by yarn_ 6mo ago
Future analysis is a valid reason to keep it, thats a good point and I agree with that.
26.
by yarn_ 6mo ago
> I'd like to be able to review commits and see which were substantially bot-written and which were mostly human) then it's also easy. Why is this, though? I'm genuinely curious. My code-quality bar doesn't change eit
27.
by yarn_ 6mo ago
I agree with a lot of this, but thats kind of my point: if all these things (poor tests, non-DRY, redundant comments, etc) were true about a piece of purely human-written code then I would reject it just the same, so whats the difference? L
28.
by yarn_ 6mo ago
Hah, ya exactly. I say sorry to objects if I drop them or accidently whack them, and feel remorse. What hope do I have with an LLM who talks to me? (jk f those clankers ofc)
29.
by yarn_ 6mo ago
> Likewise, leaving AI attribution in will probably have the opposite effect as well, where a perfectly good few lines of code gets rejected because some reviewer saw it was claude and assumed it was slop. Neither of these cases seems he
30.
by yarn_ 6mo ago
"Why would I commit something written by AI with myself as author?" Because you're the one who decided to take responsibility for it, and actually choose to PR it in its ultimate form. What utility do the reviews/maintai

More ›