Hacker News Reader

Comment by otabdeveloper4 | Hacker News Reader

> Why do we need AI here?

AI psychosis is a real thing and an actual mental health issue.

The only psychotic behavior I see in the linked issue comes from the anti AI people.

funny speculative question: psychosis is evidently a gradient. Does AI just highlight latent general psychosis (i.e. in the simplified interpretation of a worldview shaped more by unchecked belief and fantasy than observation) in otherwise largely functional people?

What if the problem is that we train people too much to take things that are being said at face value without questioning/observing them, increasing the psychosis problem?

Everyone is susceptible to addictions or psychosis to some degree.

What matters is when the stimulus presented exceeds their resistance.

Extended AI use is a highly attractive stimulus that exceeds most people's resistance, especially when sycophantically interacted with in an echo chamber (human-AI, with no other humans in the room).

So yes, it's dangerous in the same way that cigarettes and social media are.

Just because some people can avoid slipping into it, doesn't mean we should ignore population-as-a-whole outcomes.

Similar to anti-AI derangement

No. There is no "anti-AI derangement", the reaction to slop is normal.

Spamming an open source developer with angry comments because they decided to use a new tool for the code they write and publish freely is not normal.

This is rsync we are talking about. A bug in rsync basically means lost data and/or unreliable backups.

I think it's normal to be pissed at lost data. Maybe it's not socially acceptable to spit in the face of a volunteer but it's 100% human to feel annoyed by an obvious drop in code quality.

> Maybe it's not socially acceptable to spit in the face of a volunteer

Why are you hedging this? Do you think maybe it is socially acceptable?

This isn't a hedge at all. There is likely an English mistake/misinterpretstion being made here. I am a native English speaker btw.

Do you believe the comments in this GitHub issue are acceptable social discourse towards an open source maintainer?

The first comment, which is a screenshot from Mastodon, is perfectly acceptable. There is a clear regression between newer versions of rsync.

Then egos got bruised and things leave the realm of reason soon after. But coming with a request saying "Version X worked while version Y doesn't", with maybe some degree of annoyance, is fine.

The title of the original issue, by the original issue submitter, is “Please Do Not Vibe Fuck Up This Software”.

The thing is, showing the annoyance to the volunteer, who is already doing their best, has two possible outcomes:

1) they stop volunteering

2) they will ignore you

In neither of that is your issue solved. So maybe it's better to deal with the frustration on your own and then file a bug report.

There must be some degree of communication from customers to developers. Even if it is a free volunteer service.

Poor communication results in professionals firing the customer as well. None of this is exclusive to OSS of volunteer effort. But the communication in general is necessary.

This is just product management and communication issues. There is an perceived problem and the problem MUST be communicated.

Problems aren't solved by shutting up and ignoring things. And based on the discussion in this topic, it's clear there's a lot of people who are worried about rsync code quality here.

These are not customers.

Look, it's not that long time ago when we had the xz malware. The pattern is always the same. Maintainer of the project is doing X, people start to pressure them to do something else, maintainer gives up and opens the project up to other maintainers, and then many things can happen. If there is any lesson from the incident, open source maintainers should never allow the pressure to happen, ignore it if it's too strong, block people. Rsync has been maintained for a very long time. Bugs happen, even regression bugs happen. People don't get to dictate how should the volunteer do development.

If I were the rsync maintainer I’d probably set the repo to only allow issues and PRs from prior contributors until people learn to behave.

Yes. That's called firing the customer in my line of work.

This doesn't seem egregious enough to fire the customer.

Again, this is not work and they are not customers.

This is somebody spending their free time on code they enjoy and then putting the result online.

The reason businesses are careful about which customers they fire is because they want to keep having customers. Open source maintainers have no reason to deal with that shit.

Then he can fire the customer. By simply closing the issue.

No this is part of the foundation that many open computing systems are built on. It's long past being just someone's experimental personal repo.

How many people have to star your repo before it's no longer yours?

If I were the rsync maintainer after this I'd unpublish it everywhere I had control over, delete the repo and turn off my computer to go walk in the park. The linked thread is insane.

Just going away from computers for a few days should be enough, the mob will get tired soon.

And it seems like regressions that lead to rsync losing data is just as serious.

Again: we are talking about rsync here. This new methodology being used this year seems to be associated with a regression (ie: Data loss since this is rsync after all....) that likely wouldn't have happened any other year.

Or at least: the regressions at play are consisting of thousands of lines of changes that was only navigated by Claude later down in the discussion.

We are reaching the point of AI developed code that requires AI itself to analyze. One step at a time. It's right for the open source customers who are used to understanding changes and smaller patches than this.

Before you call yourself a customer of an FOSS project, perhaps show us the receipt that a monetary transaction had actually taken place between you and the developer.

Otherwise, you're just a beggar. And beggars don't get to choose.

If committing thousands of lines of unreviewed AI generated code is "doing their best", I'd argue that them not contributing anymore would be a net benefit for the project.

That's possible, but who are you to tell a person what they should and shouldn't do in their free time.

I could ask you the same thing. Who are you to tell a person they're not allowed to criticize someone else's public actions?

Sorry, but working on projects that interest you and going online to tell somebody they fucked up are not equivalent social behaviors.

No longer volunteering is not an obviously worse outcome than volunteering negative value contributions.

> because they decided to use a new tool for the code they write

That's not why the comments are angry. The anger is directed at the slop approach to code review.

I guarantee you the same anti-AI people wouldn't give a shit if the author used an AI-enabled IDE and personally vetted all commits.

It really is an odd feeling to be in between the 2 extremes

The problem is that both camps take their positions as religious righteousness, which lobotomizes their abilities to have productive, pros and cons discussions about matters at hand.

The internet/apps of the last 20 years have not exactly boosted people's ability to think critically and set aside their passions though.

Much easier to keep eyeballs glued and sell them ads if you encourage their baser impulses.

take heart knowing at least I'm there with ya.

You might want to use different term. After all, Trump derangement syndrome turned out to be "people who actually listen to him and say truth about him".

X-derangement thing is not used in reference to people whobare wrong or lying, but in reference to people who are making correct observations

Reply on news.ycombinator.com