upvote

points

by xyzzy_plugh13 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby superb_dev13 hours ago|
next
[-]
Are you suggesting the AI just rewrites the whole thing under a different license? There’s no way that’s not more dicey than the AGPL license.
reply
upvoteby jacquesm13 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
That's exactly what they did here, I don't see the difference.
reply
upvoteby hunterpayne12 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
This is the difference. This guy took an existing source base, had Claude find specific bugs, then had Claude fix a specific bug which was then reviewed by a person. We also don't know if these changes introduce new problems yet. You are suggesting letting Claude write an entirely new source base. That's light-years away from what happened here.
reply
upvoteby qlte4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]

  > light-years away from what happened here
What? This project is literally an LLM port of Postgres from C to Rust. The name "pgrust" is a hint, if somewhat subtle.

There is also zero evidence a human has reviewed a meaningful amount of the code generated for the port, let alone the original C code from Postgres, given the size/scale of the project and the how quickly it was produced.

reply
upvoteby yifanl13 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
They did it on permissively licensed code would be the difference.
reply
upvoteby hunterpayne13 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
No. This is system code. You let an LLM loose on it, it probably fixed 20 bugs and introduces 200 more plus 5 different performance regressions. In all fairness, your average app programmer would have the same problems. That's why it takes so long to learn to be a system programmer and why it takes so long to do anything on a systems source base. For reference, systems are OSes, DBs and compilers (although compilers are very different in many ways).

Also, you can successfully sell a systems project that is only 10% faster. 30000x faster and they are throwing illegal and debauched things through your window to get access to your improvements.

reply
upvoteby skinfaxi12 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> No. This is system code. You let an LLM loose on it, it probably fixed 20 bugs and introduces 200 more plus 5 different performance regressions.

What does it being system code have to do with anything?

reply
upvoteby hunterpayne10 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The brittleness and difficult of writing the code. The extra complexity. The cost of bugs. And ease of creating performance degradations. If you are even asking that question, you probably don't have the experience to even have an opinion on this.

Most systems code has to be "canonical". That means it can't be improved. Imagine the most difficult PR review you have ever had. Now give the reviewers OCD and an extra 30 IQ points. And every single code change has to live up to this standard. That's what it has to do with this.

reply
upvoteby skinfaxi5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> The brittleness and difficult of writing the code. The extra complexity. The cost of bugs. And ease of creating performance degradations. If you are even asking that question, you probably don't have the experience to even have an opinion on this.

You didn't express anything unique to systems engineering.

reply
upvoteby derdi9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
What do you mean, "No"? Letting an LLM loose on Postgres is exactly what happened here: https://malisper.me/pgrust-rebuilding-postgres-in-rust-with-...
reply