undefined

[-]

> Ironically these people are displaying great confidence in AI’s abilities.

Maybe they were displaying high confidence in a marketing machine's ability to commit to dangerous stunts.

by famouswaffles26 days ago|

[-]

Stop thinking about '9 days' like it means the same thing in an era where machines can generate thousands of lines of code in a few hours.

There is no way a human rewrite like this wouldn't be roughly at the same stage with a 9 day delta. In that case, some of these accusations would be reasonable to make. But that is not the case here.

by geodel25 days ago|

[-]

Thats fine if some Claude code agent made PR and committed it. No human involved, no human drama ensued.

People here are pointing the problem because Anthropic dude claimed, it is an experiment, tests are still failing, may go nowhere.. blah..blah.

[-]

Yes because it was an experiment and tests were indeed failing at that point in time, but guess what ? When an experiment succeeds you probably don't throw away the results.

by BoorishBears25 days ago|

[-]

You know, we used to look down on engineers who didn't realize there's more to software than the raw lines of code.

[-]

You're free to look down on whoever you want. I'm free to tell you I couldn't care less, and that both replies so far just confirm how much of an emotional meltdown the reactions here really are. Your comment has managed to have nothing to do with the point I was making.

by BoorishBears25 days ago|

[-]

You're getting the responses you earned by intentionally being flippant as possible.

If you had presented your point more thoughtfully, maybe I'd have spoon fed the point of my response, which 100% relates to what you said: your model of time compression is describing the speed of creating code.

But Bun is more than lines of code and serves as core infrastructure for lots of other projects. It's a terrible look in terms of governance to approach this migration as they have, especially the initial denial.

That shouldn't be contentious.

[-]

There's no reason to think there was an 'initial denial'. That's the point. Everyone here is saying there was denial because all of this happened in 9 days, and again, that's a silly assertion to make when humans did not create or review the code. Someone can have a swift turn in opinion when an incredible amount of change happens in a short time. The LoC comment I made was simply to serve as an illustration to how fast things can change with LLM generated code.

I'm being flippant because this should be incredibly easy to understand.

by BoorishBears25 days ago|

[-]

Maybe it might be easier to understand if I was a really terrible engineer.

AI gives me 750k LoC PR that's mostly broken and unuseable on Monday.

AI then fixing it by adding another 250k LoC, is not going to convince me, a competent maintainer of a major Js runtime with years of contributions, plenty of downstream dependents, and an understanding of the AI zeitgeist... to merge it all in by the next Wednesday

[-]

>Maybe it might be easier to understand if I was a really terrible engineer.

Yes yes I'm sure Jarred is a really terrible engineer. Yawn.

>AI then fixing it by adding another 250k LoC, is not going to convince me, a competent maintainer of a major Js runtime with years of contributions, plenty of downstream dependents, and an understanding of the AI zeitgeist... to merge it all in by the next Wednesday

But you're not any of these things, are you? Regardless, of course you're free to not make the same decision. Doesn't really change the point.

by BoorishBears24 days ago|

[-]

The fact so many people can tell these actions don't meet the bar of a competent maintainer is... not a flex.

And I didn't realize I was talking to a cheerleader the whole time: I guess I'll defer to you on if Jarred is consistently a terrible engineer, or is just being a terrible engineer this one time.

by fragmede25 days ago|

[-]

Just because the machines can generate code that quickly doesn't mean that human thought has changed to moving faster. Everyone's had a problem they were working on, and the solution doesn't come sitting at the desk staring at the code, but three days later in the shower, eureka! hits. Just because machines are writing code hasn't changed the underlying human thought speed substrate. That's why people see nine days as too fast, even in this sped up AI era.

[-]

Human speed thought doesn't matter here because it's not human reviewed. The code was generated. It exists and it (now) works to the extent they're satisfied with going through with a canary release. Going on about about '9 days' is working with a mental model that simply does not apply here. That is my point.

If you think there should be human review or that there should have been a lot more human collaboration, that's one thing but accusing Jarred of lying about his intentions is another thing entirely, and one where '9 days' is not remotely the proof people think it is in this situation.

by fragmede25 days ago|

[-]

I'm not sure where I accused Jarred of lying. All I'm saying is that 9 days is not very long.

[-]

The chain we're on and the comments I originally responded to have such concerns. And I mean, if it's not going to be reviewed by humans then really what makes 9 days too soon ? Should the code just sit there collecting dust until everyone agrees an arbitrary amount of time has passed ?

by fragmede24 days ago|

[-]

Yes! For the size of the change, I think 30 days would be okay. 3 months would be better. Run them in parallel. Take some time and iron out most of the kinks. Don't break shit people rely on!

by wiseowise25 days ago|

[-]

[flagged]