Comment by petcat
2 months ago
It's less about pretending to be a human and more about not inviting scrutiny and ridicule toward Claude if the code quality is bad. They want the real human to appear to be responsible for accepting Claud's poor output.
That’s how I’d want it to be honestly. LLMs are tools and I’d hope we’re going to keep the people using them responsible. Just like any other tools we use.
It’s also pretty damn obvious when LLMs write code. Nobody out here commenting every method in perfect punctuation and grammar.
I have been doing this for years, especially for libraries (internal or otherwise), anything that's `pub`/`export`, or gnarly logic that makes the intent not obvious. Not _everything_ is documented, but most things are.
I'm doing it because I know how much I appreciate well-written documentation. Also this is a bit niche, but if you're using Rust and add examples to doc-comments, they get run as tests too.
Also given we both managed to produce more than one sentence, and include capital letters in our comments, it's entirely possible both of us will be accused of being an AI. Because, you know... People don't write like this, right?
4 replies →
skill issue
7 replies →
It's a pretty sad state of affairs when someone can say with a straight face "Nobody out here" (sic) taking their job seriously and giving it the care and attention it rightly deserves.
I feel seen...
That’s ultimately the right answer, isn’t it? Bad code is bad code, whether a human wrote it all, or whether an agent assisted in the endeavor.
Yeah in my team everyone knows everyone is using LLMs. We just have a rule. Don't commit slop. Using an LLM is no excuse for committing bad code.