Seems like he’s been pushed into using LLMs as a way to cope with the deluge of LLM-generated security reports.

  • bignose@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    20 hours ago

    No. If an established dev leans on LLMs for coding and shovels it into the main branch, they have abdicated their responsibility and trashed their reputation. We get to point that out

    without any obligation to do their work for them.

    • Kissaki@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 hours ago

      This reasoning assumes any LLM-assisted change is faulty, right?

      The linked article doesn’t make me concerned. They seem to have the expertise, seem to apply due diligence and good practice around (selectively) using LLM.

      Can people not directly involved in and working on the project assess the risks well? Do we not have to depend on author and project leadership expertise just like we had to before with any parts of development, management, and tool and infrastructure use?

      I haven’t looked up the original communication or drama, but I assume communication could have been much better. Maybe the commits didn’t say much about the reasoning and due diligence that they describe in this article? Other than that, how can you make a better judgment about the changes than them without taking a thorough look and assessment?

    • slacktoid@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Point it out, doesn’t change the fact that you’re not addressing the core problem, which is developer burnout in these FOSS projects.

      Also no its not their work, its literally a voluntary job so stop dictating how people spend their free time.

      But that’s just me, you do you.