Comment by gkfasdfasdf
2 days ago
Yes, it’s actually similar to discriminating based on race or religion, in the sense that it’s an arbitrary, meaningless criterion to discriminate on. If the Rust Bun port is better in every measurable way — passes all tests, has the same performance or better, and fixes existing bugs — then who cares what language it’s written in or how it was implemented? The point is that it’s higher quality. If you don’t trust the Bun team when they release a Rust version and give it their stamp of approval, why did you trust them when they released the Zig version two weeks ago? It makes no logical sense, and it makes the yt-dlp devs look foolish.
> If you don’t trust the Bun team when they release a Rust version and give it their stamp of approval, why did you trust them when they released the Zig version two weeks ago?
I think you cannot make this comparison because Rust version wasn’t in fact written by the Bun team. It wasn’t even read by them.
“All runtimes matter”
Yt-dlp devs made a good call. If Claude is good enough to rewrite millions of lines of Bun, it is good enough to maintain Bun fork of yt-dlp. And since Bun is part of Anthropic, they can afford it too.
people don’t care if it’s good. they only care it’s made with AI so they can signal their moral superiority. hence the derogatory term slop that is paraded around like it’s the way to win an argument
It's just more reactionary "AI bad." The tech world is rapidly splitting into people that "get" AI and people that bizarrely still resist it because they are stuck with a 2024 understanding of what AI can do (and never bothered to update their priors in earnest.)
Anyone who isn’t supporting using runtime rewritten by an LLM is obviously “doesn’t get it” and a luddite.
But in this case, the yt-dlp maintainers didn't actually evaluate the rewrite yet, they just declared they wouldn't support it, sight unseen.
Not really an argument on its merits.
4 replies →
What about people who view AI as a useful tool, and use it daily while still recognizing it’s limitations?
I’m no AI hater, but there’s a limit to how much trust I give it and the Bun rewrite is well beyond that limit.
It's a bit of a contradiction. We understand that AI can be used usefully, and to great effect. But if someone else uses it, it's a potential liability.
I think the issue is, we understand our own usage of it, and respect the boundaries of what's possible and what needs to be done to use these tools properly.
But we don't know how the other guy is using it.
We don't know if they're being responsible, and using it in a safe manner.
If they are: great. But if they aren't, we're opening ourselves up to all kinds of security shenanigans.
It's one of those things where we're only going to be okay with it, if we're the ones using it. But that also means other people will be suspect of our code.
It's really a no win scenario, except for inside each of own little bubbles.
3 replies →