If nuclear power scientists claimed they had a bomb that could level an entire city, Hiroshima would prove them correct.
vividfrier claims they haven’t written a line of code (implying other employees are similar), and their big company is operating normally. Bun is a big project and the rewrite is entirely LLM-generated. If its development continues normally, it reinforces the claim’s plausibility and proves someone made a large change (rewrite) entirely using AI. If not, it provides strong doubt: either vividfrier’s company is doing something different that avoids Bun’s problems (maybe other employees are still writing code manually), or they’re misleading or lying.
The way it'll play out is, if nothing happens denialists will claim "nothing has happened YET!", and if anything happens, those same people will claim "you see, writing AI code is a terrible idea!".
People write code differently, AI models write code differently, AI systems write code differently, companies create systems that write AI-written code differently, etc.
The system that wrote Bun bears no relationship to the system that writes OP's code.
Making such absolute statements about AI-written code is as dumb as making absolute statements about human-written code on the basis that it's "human-written".
If Hiroshima were the only big public nuclear plant around the world, then yes, the aftermath of Hiroshima would provide strong evidence either for or against nuclear power.
That’s like saying “the aftermath of Hiroshima will provide strong evidence either for or against nuclear power scientists”.
It’s irrelevant and unrelated.
If nuclear power scientists claimed they had a bomb that could level an entire city, Hiroshima would prove them correct.
vividfrier claims they haven’t written a line of code (implying other employees are similar), and their big company is operating normally. Bun is a big project and the rewrite is entirely LLM-generated. If its development continues normally, it reinforces the claim’s plausibility and proves someone made a large change (rewrite) entirely using AI. If not, it provides strong doubt: either vividfrier’s company is doing something different that avoids Bun’s problems (maybe other employees are still writing code manually), or they’re misleading or lying.
The way it'll play out is, if nothing happens denialists will claim "nothing has happened YET!", and if anything happens, those same people will claim "you see, writing AI code is a terrible idea!".
People write code differently, AI models write code differently, AI systems write code differently, companies create systems that write AI-written code differently, etc.
The system that wrote Bun bears no relationship to the system that writes OP's code.
Making such absolute statements about AI-written code is as dumb as making absolute statements about human-written code on the basis that it's "human-written".
1 reply →
The OP said they keep repos small and self contained in a mature codebase, and they code review everything before releasing.
That’s very different than converting a massive codebase one-off to an entire different language, while depending on tests to keep it contained.
Scale and process is dramatically different than the Bun case.
If Hiroshima were the only big public nuclear plant around the world, then yes, the aftermath of Hiroshima would provide strong evidence either for or against nuclear power.