undefined

I think it's the complete saturation of the platform with members who make it feel like HN is a platform for people to boast about how many tokens they burnt to rewrite something that already worked fine.

It polarizes people to either join the "the LLM is my god" crowd or the "if AI touches the repo, it's all slop" crowd.

The careful balance is rarely discussed, probably because that's the part that still takes work.

by kingcauchy7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It really depends on the post anymore. Have had a lot of really thoughtful discussions about the nuance that came out of HN convos. Seems like most businesses and people are still just trying to figure out.

by necovek4 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

I think "careful balance" is the status quo even if people are unaware of it being so.

Agents and LLM-assisted coding currently work within the confines of already working hand-coded OSes, language frameworks, test harnesses and even CLI tooling. Pull one of those out, and agents become unhinged and they lose direction.

by runeb7 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

I would hope that lazy polarization found some resistance on this particular forum

by mahboi6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It has. You don't see a lot of people who are all-in on AI or against it.

by ranger_danger7 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Although Theo seems to imply AI code is not welcome, this commit says Claude was used: https://github.com/openbsd/src/commit/9c2b8e445a0bdfafdd6148...

by ninjin7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Plenty of issues that have been patched recently found using such tools as well. OpenBSD's policy remains largely the same as always: You need to understand the patch you propose and it needs to be maintainable. The link elsewhere in this thread is mainly discussing large patches where it is unclear if the LLM drew too heavily on code elsewhere.

by raddan5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

OpenBSD's errata list has recently started growing rapidly, and the scale is a real departure from the past. I have taken to running syspatch much more regularly than in the past. Anyway, it's clear that the project's stance on AI is "as long as reports are detailed and high-quality (and probably from a person with a record of such work) the project will act on it." See slide 17 here: https://events.eurobsdcon.org/media/2026/submissions/ZGDXQR/...

by ninjin3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Neat little link trick for PDFs:

https://events.eurobsdcon.org/media/2026/submissions/ZGDXQR/...

Talked to bluhm@ after that talk in Brussels and the general feeling (from what I can remember from the conversation) so far is that there is a large increase in overall reports (good and bad), but that the severity of what is reported has not really increased. This also mirrors my own experience from reading source-changes@. In essence, it seems like we have known how to build secure software for the last thirty or so years, just that most do not seem to have bothered to do so.