Comment by cebert
7 hours ago
It’s a shame that the source code isn’t commented and documented more. At the very least, I would see it being helpful to add some documentation for every CPU op code being emulated.
7 hours ago
It’s a shame that the source code isn’t commented and documented more. At the very least, I would see it being helpful to add some documentation for every CPU op code being emulated.
Forbidding LLM to write comments and docstrings (preferrably enforced by build and commit hook) is one of the best "hacks" for using that thing. LLM cannot help itself but emit poisonous comments.
And since it's vibe coded, no one knows what the opcodes are. LLM won't remember. Human has no comments. Human can't trust post-hoc LLM-generated comments because they're poisonous.
Or maybe clone the comments from where it cloned the source.
Meh. No human has written the horrors llm produces. At least I am yet to see codebase like that. Let me attempt a theatrical reenactment:
... and so on. It basically uses comments as a wall to scribble grandiose graffiti about it's valiant conquests in following explicit instruction after fifth repeat and not commiting egregious violence agains common sense.
2 replies →
I used to worry that using LLMs to code would let them use my code and train on my hard work. Then I realised how bad my code is, so I'm probably singlehandedly holding off an agi catastrophe.
Probably better to look at a human-authored emulator if you want comments containing accurate information anyway.
If you let it, Claude Code will write a comment for almost every single line of code.
Even if you try to get them to not, they will still overcomment the code. Or at least overcomment it from the perspective of a human. From the perspective of the LLM, I suspect the comments are necessary for it to be able to get the code output correct.
It's also a discoverability tool. If the code has good docstrings and decent naming for functions/variables it's a lot easier for the LLM to find the correct places to edit.