← Back to context

Comment by hypeatei

3 days ago

It's clear some people have had their brain broken by the existence of AI. Some maintainers are definitely too nice, and it's infuriating to see their time get wasted by such delusional people.

43 comments

hypeatei

Reply
ares623  3 days ago

That’s why AI (and bad actors in general) is taking advantage of them. It’s sick.

jodrellblank  3 days ago

> "It's clear some people have had their brain broken by the existence of AI."

The AI wrote code which worked, for a problem the submitter had, which had not been solved by any human for a long time, and there is limited human developer time/interest/funding available for solving it.

Dumping a mass of code (and work) onto maintainers without prior discussion is the problem[1]. If they had forked the repo, patched it themselves with that PR and used it personally, would they have a broken brain because of AI? They claim to have read the code, tested the code, they know that other people want the functionality; is wanting to share working code a "broken brain"? If the AI code didn't work - if it was slop - and they wanted the maintainers to fix it, or walk them through every step of asking the AI to fix it - that would be a huge problem, but that didn't happen.

[1] copyrightwashing and attribution is another problem but also not one that's "broken brain by the existence of AI" related.

  • kace91  3 days ago

    >They claim to have read the code, tested the code, they know that other people want the functionality; is wanting to share working code a "broken brain"?

    There is clearly a deviation between the amount of oversight the author thinks they provided and the actual level of oversight. This is clear by the fact that they couldn’t even explain the misattribution. They also mention that this is not their area of expertise.

    In general, I think that it is a reasonable assumption that, if you couldn’t have written the code yourself, you’re in no position to claim you can ensure its quality.

    • jodrellblank  3 days ago

      If a manager says they provided oversight of their developer employees, and the code was not as good as the manager thought, would you say "the manager has had their brain broken by the existence of employees"?

      4 replies →

    • wagerlabs  2 days ago

      By testing the code I mean that I actually focused on tests passing and the output in the examples being produced by AI running lldb using this modified compiler.

  • nsagent  3 days ago

    It's clear Claude adapted code directly from the OxCaml implementation (the PR author said he pointed Claude at that code [1] and then provides a ChatGPT analysis [2] that really highlights the plagiarism, but ultimately comes to the conclusion that it isn't plagiarized).

    Either that highlights someone who is incompetent or they are willfully being blasé. Neither bodes well for contributing code while respecting copyright (though mixing and matching code on your own private repo that isn't distributed in source or binary form seems reasonable to me).

    [1]: https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/pull/14369#issuecomment-35573...

    [2]: https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/pull/14369#issuecomment-35566...

    • menaerus  3 days ago

      Sorry, this is just ridicilous and shows how people fragile really are. This whole topic and whole MR as well.

      I am routinely looking into the folly implementation, sometimes into the libstdc++, sometimes into libc++, sometimes into boost or abseil etc. to find inspiration for problems that I tackle in other codebases. By the same standards, this should also be plagiarism, no? I manufacture new ideas by compiling existing knowledge from elsewhere. Literally every engineer in the world does the same. Why is AI any different?

      26 replies →

  • kace91  3 days ago

    Also, I just took a glance at the PR and even without knowing the language it took 10 seconds for the first WTF. The .md documents Claude generated are added to .gitignore, including one for the pr post itself.

    That’s the quality he’s vouching for.

  • wagerlabs  2 days ago

    People complaining about AI stealing code may not realize that OxCaml is a fork of the code that AI is modifying. Both forks have the same license and there are people working on both projects.

    AI did paste Mark's copyright on all the files for whatever reason but it did not lift the DWARF implementation from OxCaml and paste it into the PR.

    The PR wasn't one-shot either. I had to steer it to completion over several days, had one AI review the changes made by the other, etc. The end result is that the code _works_ and does what it says on the tin!