21 comments
As a maintainer (but not on this project), I feel an implicit (professional) responsibility to carefully review PRs, especially from random people. And as a profession, we know it's often harder to read code than it is to write it. This goes double for LLM code, which sometimes lacks a coherent mental model.
So in general, the asymmetry of "I did very little work here, but I'd like you to spend your time carefully reviewing it nonetheless" can be very annoying.
But to talk about specifics: this PR's description is mostly a waste of time. The first section is a pure duplication of the diff. If I wanted before/after code blocks, I'd click the "Files Changed" tab. Ditto for "Docs-only: 4 insertions, 1 deletion, docs/graph.md only. No change to the player bundle, layout or any other page." - yeah, I can see that in the diff, thanks. (Well, that's what it was in the original diff, before the follow-up changes.)
The testing and AI disclosure sections are similarly overly verbose. I don't need commentary on the policy, nor do I need a statement permitting me to reject the PR.
As an outsider, yeah, my reaction is pretty negative. I'd much prefer a description like "Fixes #3224. Migrated from v2 asciinema-player to v3 AsciinemaPlayer.create, as described in v2 to v3 migration guide [link]. Tested locally as best I could."
A maintainer needing to ask to migrate the other v2 uses isn't a great look, either. The follow-up "fixed the other 5" comment could simply end at "fixed the other 5", without all of the nonsense afterward.
I have to wonder whether all of this truly saved anyone time.
"The project and the bug were co-opted into an 100% automated flow without asking permission. It forced you to detect and intervene in order to get a human to pay attention. Your [sic] were forced to dedicate human time, while they could choose whether to or not. That's exactly the unsustainable asymmetry that should be renounced."
Of course, it's impossible to know for sure what was LLM processed or not, but some of your posts (like this one) have been getting classified that way.
Please consider that other people are human beings and not just NPCs that exist to help you make money.
It forced you to detect and intervene in order to get a human to pay attention. Your were forced to dedicate human time, while they could choose whether to or not. That's exactly the unsustainable asymmetry that should be renounced.Read the full thread on Hacker News →
Related stories
- The Verge · 0 points · 3 days ago
- Can you forget how you feel about Meta?theverge.comThe Verge · 0 points · 9 days ago
- The Verge · 0 points · 5 days ago
- Can John Ternus find Apple’s next big thing?theverge.comThe Verge · 0 points · 10 days ago
- Hacker News · 73 points · 9 days ago
- The Verge · 0 points · about 11 hours ago