zlacker

>>freeto+(OP)
I’m not a big AI fan but I do see it as just another tool in your toolbox. I wouldn’t really care how someone got to the end result that is a PR.

But I also think that if a maintainer asks you to jump before submitting a PR, you politely ask, “how high?”

>>Waterl+A3
It does matter how and where a PR comes from, because reviewers are fallible and finite, so trust enters the equation inevitably. You must ask "Do I trust where this came from?" And to answer that, you need to know where it come from.

If trust didn't matter, there wouldn't have been a need for the Linux Kernel team to ban the University of Minnesota for attempting to intentionally smuggle bugs through the PR process as part of an unauthorized social experiment. As it stands, if you / your PRs can't be trusted, they should not even be admitted to the review process.

>>cvoss+56
> You must ask "Do I trust where this came from?" And to answer that, you need to know where it come from.

No you don’t. You can’t outsource trust determinations. Especially to the people you claim not to trust!

You make the judgement call by looking at the code and your known history of the contributor.

Nobody cares if contributors use an LLM or a magnetic needle to generate code. They care if bad code gets introduced or bad patches waste reviewers’ time.

>>koolba+H9
> Nobody cares if contributors use an LLM or a magnetic needle to generate code.

That’s exactly opposite of what the author is saying. He mentions that [if the code is not good, or you are a beginner] he will help you get to finish line, but if it’s LLM code, he shouldn’t be putting effort because there’s no human on the other side.

It makes sense to me.

>>gerane+xf
"but if it’s LLM code, he shouldn’t be putting effort because there’s no human on the other side"

That's the false equivalence right there

>>blurbl+Es
It's not a false equivalence. You can teach a beginner to become an intermediate (and later a master, if they stick to it). You can't teach an LLM to be better. Every piece of feedback you give to an LLM is like screaming into the void - it wastes your time, and doesn't change the LLM one iota.

>>tsimio+Bx
"Every piece of feedback you give to an LLM is like screaming into the void - it wastes your time, and doesn't change the LLM one iota."

I think you just haven't gotten the hang of it yet, which is fine... the tooling is very immature and hard to get consistent results with. But this isn't a given. Some people do get good, steerable LLM coding setups.

>>blurbl+9y
Steering via prompting isn't the same as fundamentally changing the LLM by teaching, as you can do with humans. I think OP understands this better than you.

>>sho_hn+IJ
Can't tell if you're responding in earnest or not here?

LLMs are trained to be steerable at inference time via context/prompting. Fine tuning is also possible and often used. Both count as "feedback" in my book, and my point is that both can be effective at "changing the LLM" in terms of its behavior at inference time.