Comment by felixgallo
11 hours ago
We as a society have to cut this low effort commenting out. The documentation is perfectly comprehensible. What action would you take differently if a given feature were implemented by Claude, or a human?
11 hours ago
We as a society have to cut this low effort commenting out. The documentation is perfectly comprehensible. What action would you take differently if a given feature were implemented by Claude, or a human?
If you've ever been tasked with coming up to speed on a system mostly documented with AI writing, you'll quickly realise how hard it is to trust anything you are reading. Even if the Claude documentation is 100% accurate, you'll never shake the worry that some crucial fact you founded your understanding on was wrong. It's a fast recipe for psychosis.
That's without even mentioning that AI writing can often state the what but not the why. That human perspective is usually the most valuable knowledge to get across in writing.
There’s no reason to trust a human any more than an LLM for this. Humans are not 100% accurate and very capable of making crucial factual errors in documentation. Ask me how I know.
There’s a _very_ good reason. Humans have a much richer mental mental model of the codebase, design decisions, external factors, etc.
Of course Humans can make errors when translating that to English. But if you’ve read any amount of Claudish it should be obvious that interpolating the code to documentation with an LLM typically produces a significantly worse result in almost every way. Except for superficially “sounding” correct.
2 replies →
It's probably possible to prompt an LLM into writing well, but most LLM writing that I've seen is poorly structured (e.g., the paragraphs in this post feel like strings of punchy marketing phrases), and the LLMs are too good at sounding like they're saying a lot while saying very little.
Plus, if a human puts the effort into writing something, that signals to me that it's worth something, because human time is much more scarce than LLM time.
I don't want to read software written by misanthropes. If you've given up on working with other people, then what is the point exactly?
at that point i just ask an ai questions about how the system works and hope the reasons for particular decisions can be reverse engineered from git history/pr comments etc.
As I said in my message, it would determine whether I use the project or not. I need to match it to my use cases, and if I find a match I need to know: is it matching because my use case falls in the domain of what the human collaborator wants from this project, or is my use case a hallucination that will go unsupported?
You cannot tell either from the AI written docs. I'd rather OP gave a rambling post about some problem he has in gamedev that led him to think a new language was needed, why the constraints are different, and how this will improve X, Y, or Z in his own words. Then I can infer what this project is and where it is going. Right now, I have no clue.
The docs are perfectly legible and to the point. I don't see the need to waste the author's time with aesthetics
Legibility is not the concern. The issue is whether the point the docs are making are the actual point the author is concerned with.
With respect, what on earth are you talking about? The documentation is clear about what the language does. You can download it and test it out if you like, and verify if yourself if the documentation matches the feature descriptions. What the human collaborator wants is immaterial. You get the code.
The author has written that post about why the language came about. He doesn't owe you that, but he did it anyway. He doesn't owe you anything more. You can use it or not. Advising him to throw away all the documentation and rewrite it again by hand from scratch so that adastra22 can deign to examine it further is ridiculous.
If you have a question about whether or not this further iterations will fit your specific (and so far undescribed) particular use case, the correct avenue for that is to ask the author politely. Or Fable; Fable could probably tell you without having to bother the author. But holy cow, the entitlement.
Are we now in a situation where all code is disposable, throwaway things with no long-lived projects?
We're talking about a programming language. Languages, and their compilers, evolve over time. Where is this one headed?
5 replies →
Seems like an AI could be tasked with verifying the docs. Then a human can double check it's work if it finds anything.
Verify against what? What I want verification against lives in the human's head, not the repo.
1 reply →
What's left to determine? Obviously AI written docs are a deal breaker for you. Seems very straightforward. If docs are ai written, move on. That's an immediate and obvious fundamental incompatibility you have with the project. Why are you still complaining about the docs being ai written getting in the way of making your decision when you've clearly already made it?
Comprehensibility does not equal correctness or fitness. As if that wasn't enough, or perhaps in most related manner, an LLM/AI cannot be held responsible for what it produces, by nature, especially considering the fact that a _human_ claims all of it as their own work, or at least take responsibility. Meaning that when a parable of documentation is discovered to be bogus, you can't pin it on AI, you go to the human and ask them why the documentation is wrong, and it's not a good look.
Why are low effort comments not worthwhile but low effort docs are fine?
> The documentation is perfectly comprehensible
For a programming language? It's subpar and you know it.
See this for a language docs site by a small-ish team, but a significant effort was put into making it nice to read: https://tour.gleam.run/everything/
> What action would you take differently if a given feature were implemented by Claude, or a human?
This one is easy: I'd read the docs if it were written by a human, but I won't read them if they're written by Claude.
I find your comment much much lower effort than GP you took a snip at. It's true that more ppl may align in your thinking, but dissing the other side's concern as low effort does not belong in hn.