Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • Shouldn't there be guidelines for open source projects where it is clearly stipulated that code submitted for review must follow the project's code format and conventions?
    by Bengalilol
  • If one claims to be able to write good code with LLMs, it should just as easy to write comprehensive e2e tests. If you don't hold your code to a high testing standard than you were always going off 'vibes' whether they were from a silicon neural network or your human meatware biases.
    by quxbar
  • I guess the main question I'm left with after reading this is "what good is a prototype, then?" In a few of the companies I've worked at there was a quarterly or biannual ritual called "hack week" or "innovation week" or "hackathon" where engineers form small teams and try to bang out a pet project super fast. Sometimes these projects get management's attention, and get "promoted" to a product or feature. Having worked on a few of these "promoted" projects, to the last they were unmitigated disasters. See, "innovation" doesn't come from a single junior engineer's 2AM beer and pizza fueled fever dream. And when you make the mistake of believing otherwise, what seemed like some bright spark's clever little dream turns into a nightmare right quick. The best thing you can do with a prototype is delete it.
    by jcgrillo
  • Essay is way more interesting than the title, which doesn't actually capture it.
    by jrochkind1
  • So far I prefer the Hashimoto's solution to this that "AI tooling must be disclosed for contributions": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44976568

    I use it like this: If a PR is LLM-generated, you as a maintainer either merge it if it's good or close if it's not. If it's human-written, you may spend some time reviewing the code and iterating on the PR as you used to.

    Saves your time without discarding LLM PRs completely.

    by r4victor
  • > “I am closing this but this is interesting, head over to our forum/issues to discuss”

    I really like the way Discourse uses "levels" to slowly open up features as new people interact with the community, and I wonder if GitHub could build in a way of allowing people to only be able to open PRs after a certain amount of interaction, too (for example, you can only raise a large PR if you have spent enough time raising small PRs).

    This could of course be abused and/or lead to unintended restrictions (e.g. a small change in lots of places), but that's also true of Discourse and it seems to work pretty well regardless.

    by jamesbelchamber
  • Anyone else feel like we're cresting the LLM coding hype curve?

    Like a recognition that there's value there, but we're passing the frothing-at-the-mouth stage of replacing all software engineers?

    by softwaredoug
  • This is a problem everywhere now, and not just in code. It now takes zero effort to produce something, whether code or a work plan or “deep research” and then lob it over the fence, expecting people to review and act upon it.

    It’s an extension of the asymmetric bullshit principle IMO, and I think now all workplaces / projects need norms about this.

    by andy99

Explore Birbla archives