upvote

points

by Borealid12 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby MadameMinty12 hours ago|
next
[-]
I'm more upset about it being factually wrong, e.g. both mentions of "git-ignored" are absurd (why would you mention it if it's not in the repo?) and wrong (they are in the repo).
reply
upvoteby vincnetas12 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I notice this, that AI likes to write about things that are not in there. Like i review AI generated output, notice unnecessary things, and asks AI to remove that. So AI removes that and adds that "this and that, that was used or described like this, was removed because bla bla bla" to the document.

I think its somehow needs to talk (write) about the things that are in the context and removal is there so AI predicts that it should be there.

reply
upvoteby MadameMinty12 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Yeah, I call it bugfix storytelling. Once upon a time this class far far away had this red hooded method...

Especially egregious if both adding and removing the thing happens in one commit. Git should be telling the story, and if it can't then there _is_ no story!

reply
upvoteby static_motion7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
I spend so much time cleaning up AI comments in the codebases I work on, it's maddening. I could have an instruction to not allow it to write comments at all, but some of them are useful.
reply
upvoteby joegibbs9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Yes it's constant. And in any article it's full of "The X does Y. The Z does A. But the B stays silent."
reply
upvoteby stuaxo12 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
AI writing is just bad, this things is really noticable - but even in READMEs they look superficially OK until you read them.

AI probably should not be writing docs, commit logs or comments.

reply
upvoteby fwlr12 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
If you think about it, actually the author did write what they did (nothing), and also how it’s used (it isn’t).
reply
upvoteby gnud12 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Seems like the owner of the github repo claims copyright, though. Since they provide a license.
reply
upvoteby kilpikaarna8 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Exactly. The code, whatever, it's for machines so I don't really care if it's by machines as long as it works. But if you can't even be bothered to think about the human-facing parts of your thing like docs and UX, I'm not really interested. It just feels cheap (in the bad sense) and offputting.
reply
upvoteby lemagedurage9 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Agree.

I do feel like there's merit to having an open source implementation of anything, no matter who/what wrote it. I'm just hoping the results are validated well.

reply
upvoteby nialv710 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> what they did

bold of you to assume the code wasn't llm generated as well.

reply
upvoteby sigmar8 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
you think a human wrote the code? in a month? Do you think that's air you're breathing? might be time to challenge preconceptions
reply
upvoteby ChrisRR12 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I'm fine with it
reply
upvoteby rvz12 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
If the README is >90% AI generated and it is as long as a novel, I am not going to read it and will assume that the author did not read or write it either.

Unfortunately it is slop, beyond the comprehension of the author unless they are experienced with DLSS internals to explain it in depth.

reply
upvoteby pjmlp11 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
"Am I the only one who feels a sense of disinterest in a project where the code is LLM-generated? Does the author not have time to code the project?"

This is how I feel about every single project announcement on HN recently, they are already bragging about models all over the place, why shouldn't they go full way down being replaced by the Borg?

reply
upvoteby VMG11 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Slop is a new language and you will learn it read it
reply