I’m no fan of AI generally, but “AI Vulnerable” as a term just doesn’t make much sense to me. Code reviewing should be filtering out bad code whether it originates from an AI or a human.
PR spamming with the usage of AI is another problem which is very serious and harmful for OSS, but that’s not due to some unique danger that only AI code has and human contributors don’t.
I mean it’s Python. This is what we get for having been overly reliant on it.
All kidding aside, I am a more than a bit confused by this.
sadge
Maybe I don’t understand what this warning means, but I don’t see anything here: https://github.com/python/cpython/issues?q=is%3Apr+author%3Aclaude
Does this mean something else?
warclaude is Coming
What is “AI vulnerable”? What is the problem here? Claude isn’t reverse-Midas, it’s not like everything they touch turns to shit.
Studies continue to show that AI routinely generates unsafe code and even human code reviews often don’t catch major problems. AI generated code should not be trusted or accepted and projects that accept them should be treated as compromised.
Alright, well I use Claude in my code and it produced a better library than anything that was publicly available on Github from me just feeding a PDF of a datasheet for the module into an LLM.
I’m all for not blindly trusting AI, give it limits, review and test everything it makes, but flat out rejecting any AI generated code as “compromised” feels reactionary to me.
I understand the problems, but I don’t think they amount to something as simple and close-minded as “all LLM generated code bad and evil”, unless thinking critically takes too much time and energy I guess? Some people just have to make blanket decisions because it’s easier for them.
Humans can barely write safe C code, so I definitely don’t trust AI to. I’m not even blanket against AI assistance in programming, but there are way too many hidden landmines in C for an LLM to be reliable with.
I use it in C++ and it has been very helpful. The OP appears to be just blanket against AI assistance in programming? There’s no indication of what degree Claude was involved here, or what amount of blind trust the human reviewers gave to it.
deleted by creator
I suspect the anti-AI push is coming from Russia or China, probably because the AI products that are in such high demand right now are of Western origin.
CC is actually really good if you know what you’re doing. The only issue imo would be PR spamming
I do not allow it committing
How hard can it be to have an AI take PR’s from other AI’s and clean out the worst + plus hardening PR protocols ? It could even assist/guide AI contributors via a special AI-contributor forum or whatever. AI are currently high-lighting a lot of ‘holes’ in systems where we expect a certain behavior. Just coping/complaining and closing things off is a bad decision, and we should accept these flaws in our systems and adapt them to a new world. The sooner the better.
The projects that get it right, now have an army of managed AI contributors, and a filtered/educational AI PR pipeline where project maintainers cherry-pick the top creme de la creme…
We’ve got several months of evidence as to how hard.
This is a fantasy. LLMs will just produce the same errors over and over a lot of the time.
If one AI could clean other AI mistakes, shouldn’t the first said be able to not make such mistakes?
AI isn’t AI. It’s predictive text. They will all fall in the same pitfalls as any other. “AI” can write code and can be very helpful making short functions, but it can’t and will never be able to do or work in whole systems because, just by nature, those are made to fit human needs, illogical and sometimes very specific needs that can’t be just “predicted”.
