Comment by echohack5
5 hours ago
I have found AI great in alot of scenarios but If I have a specific workflow, then the answer is specific and the ai will get it wrong 100% of the time. You have a great point here.
A trivial example is your happy path git workflow. I want:
- pull main
- make new branch in user/feature format
- Commit, always sign with my ssh key
- push
- open pr
but it always will
- not sign commits
- not pull main
- not know to rebase if changes are in flight
- make a million unnecessary commits
- not squash when making a million unnecessary commits
- have no guardrails when pushing to main (oops!)
- add too many comments
- commit message too long
- spam the pr comment with hallucinated test plans
- incorrectly attribute itself as coauthor in some gorilla marketing effort (fixable with config, but whyyyyyy -- also this isn't just annoying, it breaks compliance in alot of places and fundamentally misunderstands the whole point of authorship, which is copyright --- and AIs can't own copyright )
- not make DCO compliant commits ...
Commit spam is particularly bad for bisect bug hunting and ref performance issues at scale. Sure I can enforce Squash and Merge on my repo but why am I relying on that if the AI is so smart?
All of these things are fixed with aliases / magit / cli usage, using the thing the way we have always done it.
Is commit history that useful? I never wanted to look up anything in it that couldn't be solved with git log | grep xyz...
> why am I relying on that if the AI is so smart?
Because it's not? I use these things very extensively to great effect, and the idea that you'd think of it as "smart" is alien to me, and seems like it would hurt your ability to get much out of them.
Like, they're superhuman at breadth and speed and some other properties, but they don't make good decisions.