Pasting a huge AI generated explanation to a problem in an issue or pull-request is nothing but RUDE.
-
@bagder I do not manage an open source project, but even in my experience it happens much more often than I’d like to
-
-
Pasting a huge AI generated explanation to a problem in an issue or pull-request is nothing but RUDE. Don't do it. You look stupid and the receivers of that feel insulted.
We are humans. We communicate like humans. Fine, use the tools you like, but don't insult us.
i love how llms are good at finding bugs, but not actually providing a fix for them.
the one thing an automated llm would be useful for it doesn't actually do lmao
(god... imagine not having to spend hours fixing bugs and security vulns in the code)
-
-
i love how llms are good at finding bugs, but not actually providing a fix for them.
the one thing an automated llm would be useful for it doesn't actually do lmao
(god... imagine not having to spend hours fixing bugs and security vulns in the code)
@breathOfLife we use several AI powered tools that are pretty good at generating patches as well. They often aren't 100% correct, but I find even 80-90% to be rather helpful. It helps explaining the problem I f ind.
-
Pasting a huge AI generated explanation to a problem in an issue or pull-request is nothing but RUDE. Don't do it. You look stupid and the receivers of that feel insulted.
We are humans. We communicate like humans. Fine, use the tools you like, but don't insult us.
@bagder ai can't write normally when it comes to development
they write stale and robotic because they think that the project requires stale and robotic
(+ emdashes everywhere)
i do agree tho
-
Pasting a huge AI generated explanation to a problem in an issue or pull-request is nothing but RUDE. Don't do it. You look stupid and the receivers of that feel insulted.
We are humans. We communicate like humans. Fine, use the tools you like, but don't insult us.
@bagder "Not worth writing, not worth reading" has a delightfully similar cadence to "not my circus, not my monkeys", and in the last year or two it's given me about the same peace of mind.
Of course, for vuln reports, you have to be less picky about who's reporting and what tools they use, as long as the bug is real. A bug's a bug. But in a context where hundreds of people are throwing big token budgets at a single project and largely reporting duplicates, I'd guess the odds of missing something important from a reporter who didn't even bother to write the ticket (let alone do their own dupe-checking diligence) are pretty sparse.
-
@bagder @safigo Raymond Chen calls these "being on the other side of an airtight hatchway", which I really like.
Sorry you are dealing with this especially when so overworked from recent security reports.
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20221004-00/?p=107246
-
Pasting a huge AI generated explanation to a problem in an issue or pull-request is nothing but RUDE. Don't do it. You look stupid and the receivers of that feel insulted.
We are humans. We communicate like humans. Fine, use the tools you like, but don't insult us.
@bagder honestly, I have a hard time wording things right, so I tested local AI to see if it could help me
I learned that it is worse than I am
-
@bagder Pasting an AI response as long as it's accurate and the person pasting it clearly understands what's going on can be OK. It's the clearly "this person is being a crappy conduit to a chat bot somewhere" behavior that sucks.
@malwareminigun @bagder even when it’s accurate, though, it’s unpleasant to read — it’s overly verbose, riddled with irrelevant minutiae, and devoid of conversational inflection.
-
@malwareminigun @bagder even when it’s accurate, though, it’s unpleasant to read — it’s overly verbose, riddled with irrelevant minutiae, and devoid of conversational inflection.
@kumarvibe I guess I would consider "contains irrelevant minutiae" as "inaccurate"
I don't think "devoid of conversational inflection" is a problem
-
-
-
Pasting a huge AI generated explanation to a problem in an issue or pull-request is nothing but RUDE. Don't do it. You look stupid and the receivers of that feel insulted.
We are humans. We communicate like humans. Fine, use the tools you like, but don't insult us.
@bagder Straight to jail. Right away.
-
@bagder I maybe missing something, but what do you have an example?
I think it’s better than no description at all
-
@kumarvibe I guess I would consider "contains irrelevant minutiae" as "inaccurate"
I don't think "devoid of conversational inflection" is a problem
@kumarvibe Sorry for repeated posts, I'm having difficulty putting what I'm trying to get at into words. Maybe something like:
> The point is, don't make the maintainer wade through output to get to the point. If you didn't want to read it, the maintainer probably doesn't want to either.
In vcpkg we get lots of submissions that "look" like they're AI that are fine but we also get slop. I would not want to encourage changing the submissions that are good into having the submitter restate what the LLM said but worse, or omit bits that are important justification. But I would want them to prune the AI output of irrelevant slop garbage.
-
@bagder I think this is an instance of "If you couldn't be bothered to write it, I can't be bothered to read it."
-
Pasting a huge AI generated explanation to a problem in an issue or pull-request is nothing but RUDE. Don't do it. You look stupid and the receivers of that feel insulted.
We are humans. We communicate like humans. Fine, use the tools you like, but don't insult us.
@bagder thank you for being so clear about the issues here
-
Pasting a huge AI generated explanation to a problem in an issue or pull-request is nothing but RUDE. Don't do it. You look stupid and the receivers of that feel insulted.
We are humans. We communicate like humans. Fine, use the tools you like, but don't insult us.
@bagder I have no business talking with aiparrots. If I wanted an airesponse I would've asked the AI myself.
-
@safigo @mk I'll answer literally since your "why?" seems well-intentioned, given your other comments.
Painting a choice between "AI slop description" and "no description at all" is a false dicothomy, which is a rhetorical fallacy ill-intentioned people try to pull: portraying a bad-thing-X as "X or even-worse-Y". It's a fallacy because those are not the only options. The issue/PR author always has the 3rd option of writing a normal human message. That's why you got the "false dilemma" reply.
