Who said pull requests? That isn’t the topic of this thread.
Over and over again this thread’s ai hate brigade seems to want to apply some bad experience you had at work to this completely different scenario. It’s not the same. Sorry, but I have zero interest in being your therapist and you’re not going to convince me by drumming up bad examples.
Ok bud, go away now
So we agree, it’s almost always the case that the original author is the one fixing the code?
Right that was about the rabid responses from people, not the actual topic of the thread, and if anything I was commenting on others freaking the fuck out. Some of the responses are so full of hate they are just incomprehensible. I was excited to see a response that actually made any sense.
Lol it’s been a few days since I looked at the thread vs the inbox. There’s a comment near the top at +75 which is saying basically the same thing as my own at -55. So yeah, I’m sticking with rabid hate as the right description for the response I got.
Familiar, but changing 1% to 99% is no longer hyperbole.
I’m only responding to this thread, yes, not the vast irreparable harm llms are doing to society and the world. Those are different arguments and I don’t see any coupling between them at all.
I say ban users who submit code that causes problems. If that’s mostly AI shit, fine, but I’d be shocked if humans didn’t also submit trash of a different sort. You ask how can they realistically determine that…isn’t that literally what this entire thread is about? I don’t think “using AI” is a criteria for anything. Their actual, real problem is with bad code they have to deal with, so why is “it uses AI 😭” the metric rather than “bad code”? Your entire argument seems circular to me.
Well that’s an assertion they are claiming, maybe. I see people on lemmy claim that all of the time about people who use LLM tools but thinking a thing doesn’t make it fact.
Edit: I just reread the blog and actually see zero mention of that claim. So I’m not sure where you’re reading that I’m not seeing.
That’s cool, but why? I tend to use longer variable names that are mostly self-explanatory because, well, intellisense exists so I don’t really need to make them short.
Yes, it says there was an unnecessary try/catch, that’s pretty weak if that’s the only reason.
Can you point to the freak-out? How do you define freak out?
I’m calm, but since you need to hear it: nobody has ever in the history of the human race received the command to “calm down” and had it make them calmer. So chill out broski.
Have people died to desktop extensions?
Cause that’s the topic here.
You’re fighting a holy war against all AI, dune style.
I’m saying this is a super low risk environment where the implications appear to be extra try/catch blocks the code reviewers don’t like – not even incorrect functionality.
There was more to that sentence. Caring doesn’t mean accomplishing a goal in the highest effort way.
Oof this just makes it so much worse. It sounds like they have two complaints:
There are more extensions being made now. Good. If you can’t keep up, charge money to review them or something. Even charging 10 cents will drop submissions instantly.
The extensions have unnecessary try/catch blocks. And it’s not just any try catch blocks that aren’t necessary…it’s only the ai-generated unnecessary try catch blocks. Human-generated unnecessary try/catch blocks are fine. This is dumb and a dumb example because it’s a structure whose behavior is well understood and well defined. I add unnecessary try/catch blocks to my code all the time if I don’t feel like digging in at the moment to figure out all of the failure modes of some function. It’s only when a LLM does it that it upsets the poster. Ridiculous.
Why are you atting us? Replies show up for us anyway.
Regardless, I don’t know how your statement addresses anything I said.
So then the policy doesn’t make sense and should focus on what specific issues are associated with llm-generated code that are problematic. For example, I’ve seen llms generate fairly unreadable loops because it uses weird variable names. That’s a valid offense to criticize.
However I’ve also read C code before so I’ve seen an obscene amount of human generated code with shitty variable names that don’t mean anything. So why is the shitty human C code ok but shitty LLM code is not? And if no shitty code is accepted (it’s gnome so I doubt that), then why does anyone need a new rule?
Exactly, there isn’t a criteria other than the reviewer getting butthurt. Granted this is gnome, so doing whatever they feel like regardless of consequences is kind of their thing, but a saner organization would try to make the actual measurable badness more clear.
Great, so then it’s someone reading new code either way, so it shouldn’t matter if it’s in the LLM style or random human A’s style, it’s still something you have to read and learn.
But also I wonder if there’s an analysis of how many of these extensions has ever been touched by more than a single human, ever. I don’t know, but I sure wouldn’t be surprised if the answer is 80%.
No, it means doing a thing in the highest quality way. If you were taught quality is proportional to effort, you were taught poorly in my opinion.