bakugo

If something like this was implemented, the benefit of the doubt would have to be given in ambiguous cases, but I don't think it's that hard to tell most of the time.

The latest codemaxxed models all tend to write in very distinct, instantly recognizable ways unless carefully instructed otherwise (honestly a good thing if you want to avoid wasting time reading AI text). A great example is this submission that's currently #1 on the front page (which is also just a thinly veiled advertisement): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48884853

If this becomes common, it's trivially detectable with good ol' toString().

As far as I understand, "flagging" is intended for things that break the guidelines. AI-generated content is explicitly banned, but only in comments, not submissions.

I think it would be great if AI-generated submissions were outright banned as they fundamentally break the balance of effort that HN was built upon, but as was already stated by another user, YC is heavily invested in AI so there's a conflict of interest there.

Part of it might feel like ad hominem, but I think the bluntness is justified in this case. It provides some pretty important context on the situation.

As an outside observer who knew little about Zig and Bun, the impression I got is that the rewrite came out of nowhere, and that the Zig community was surprised by it. The post makes it quite clear that this wasn't the case, and describes how the actions and overall mentality of Bun's creator already suggested such a thing was likely to happen, straight from the mouth of someone who worked with him and isn't afraid to voice his thoughts. Not everything needs to be PR speak.

Vibe code was never meant to be reviewed.

These rewrites are just test-driven development taken to the absolute extreme. Created under the hope that the existing tests are exhaustive and cover every relevant use case, such that if they all pass, the rewrite must be at least as good as the original. So just go with the vibes and burn tokens until they pass, and your job is done.

In practice, this is never true for any codebase above a certain level of complexity, especially not one as mature and widely used as Postgres. But reality doesn't seem to be an obstacle for vibe coders.

I don't really understand how "written by AI" and "for learning purposes" can ever be compatible. What exactly does one learn from typing "Rewrite this in Rust, make no mistakes" into a terminal?

> But I read here every day that agents can't code. And that "real developers" spend more time fixing AI bugs than producing code, and it slows them down.

This is all correct, though. I haven't tried this, but I can guarantee it's a buggy, incoherent mess, same as every other vibe coded app I've ever tried, no exceptions.

> I would rather use a proven reliable system that’s been used and tested by millions of other users

You're describing ZFS.

It wasn't, this is just another free marketing piece for Anthropic.

This article seems quite drawn out for what is essentially an ad hominem attack on the personal views of the creator of the language.

In a sane world, this would be a clear cut case of false advertisement, and the real estate agents would be held liable for fraud. Sadly, we don't live in a sane world.

This specific form of steganography was not present when the leak happened, as far as I can tell.

I've heard that it was possible to trigger really obvious output poisoning on Fable with something as basic as asking the model to think outside of its built-in hidden thinking delimiters.

This watermark may trigger a similar mechanism.

> steal the models or illegally distill them

Oh no, they're trying to steal the models that were trained on stolen data? That's horrible, I feel so bad for Anthropic.

Output poisoning and/or eventual account bans, if I had to guess.

It's not just the price, but also how "legitimate" the registrars are and how well they deal with abuse.

Here's an anecdote: I know someone who insisted on using a .tk domain for legitimate business purposes for many years. When I heard of this, I immediately asked "isn't that the TLD managed by a shady company that gives domains away for free and then steals them back if they become popular?" He insisted this did not affect him, as he was a legitimate customer who had been paying for the domain for over a decade.

Fast forward a few years, the company behind the TLD (Freenom/OpenTLD) went under due to their shady business practices, he lost the domain, and was told he had to register it again at a new registrar for a much higher price to recover it.

Look closer at the capitalization of the words in the quoted sentence.

> To put this in perspective: If the AI had recommended Black and Asian candidates at the same rate as it recommended the most-favored group (typically white applicants)

Some people just can't help but put their biases on display at every opportunity, even when it comes to the most minute details.

"Vibe coding" implies minimal to no human involvement. It doesn't matter how good of an engineer the person who typed the prompt was, they were not involved in writing or reviewing the code, so the end result will not reflect their skill. The whole point of vibe coding is making software engineers irrelevant.

People like to go on about how "good engineers review their AI code" but that's just not what's happening in reality. Not only is reviewing large amounts of AI generated code unpleasant and mentally taxing, it also negates most of the perceived productivity boost, so people are simply not doing it.

> Proper testing

There is no formal testing that would be expected to catch an issue like this. It can barely be classified as a bug, the logging is working as intended, just with negative side effects that weren't accounted for.

The only real way to proactively prevent an issue like this is for a human programmer to stop and think about this code as they're writing it and go "hmm, we're logging large amounts of data to disk at a fast pace here, this may be a bad idea". Without human involvement, this is just going to keep happening. All vibe coded software is bloated and unstable, I have yet to see a single counter-example.

I like how the page is actually struggling to load due to the sheer amount of bot activity on the PR.

On a completely unrelated note, I wonder why Github is always down. Real mystery there.

No human has ever read or will ever read the PR description.

No human has read or will ever read any of the code, nor was any human thought involved in its creation.

Everything is performative now. As long as you just keep your eyes closed and believe it all works, that's all that matters.

ECC passively benefits everyone, even people who don't know what it is or why it's useful. Anyone can be a victim of random bit flips, it's not a targeted threat.

Memory encryption, on the other hand, provides absolutely no benefit to 99.999% of users. If you consider yourself to be such a high value target that you suspect someone might gain physical access to your hardware without your knowledge and carry out extremely sophisticated hardware attacks to extract your data, you are a tiny minority and it makes sense that such niche protections would require buying specialized hardware. Even then, the odds of such an attack being chosen instead of a far less sophisticated software-based approach are also tiny.

Of course, if the hardware itself supports the feature and AMD simply decided to disable it, that's still a shitty thing to do, but let's not pretend that it is in any way comparable to ECC.

The AI branding isn't aimed at consumers, it's aimed at investors. What consumers think about it is irrelevant.

This isn't unique to tech, either. In recent years, I've started to notice all the advertising around me increasingly targeting businesses and investors rather than the average person. Feels like we're quickly moving towards a post-consumer society, in which trying to convince the average middle class consumer to buy your product is no longer relevant, because that's simply not where the money is anymore.

I completely agree, I was just trying to make a point about the inconsistency between criticism of Russia and criticism of Israel at the peak of both nations' wars. Unconditional hatred towards every citizen for their government's actions is obviously not logical.

As is often the case, the truth is somewhere in the middle. You shouldn't expect every person who is a Russian citizen or of Russian descent to support Putin, but if a person of Russian descent does openly support Putin, it's safe to assume the two things might be correlated. Similarly, if a person of Jewish descent openly supports the Israeli government, acting like those things can't possibly be correlated doesn't make sense, either.

BlackRock is one of the largest shareholders of Palantir. Larry Fink doesn't hide his support of Israel's war efforts. The proof is right there, you barely have to look for it.

Of course, I'm sure none of this matters, because modern progressives walk a very fine line between taking a moral stance against the horrors committed by Israel, while strictly being allowed to criticize only the Israeli government itself as some sort of abstract entity completely detached from its citizens and religion to avoid "antisemitism" (the polar opposite of how Russia's war efforts have been criticized, in which every Russian citizen is often assumed to be complicit in some way).

Forgive the bluntness, but... no shit? AI companies are the last ones I would expect to have any sort of useful customer support.

> I've been a Claude Pro subscriber for a long time, I'm currently on Max,

And yet no mention of "I'm going to cancel my subscription after this bad experience." Sounds like everything works out for Anthropic.

> undeniable, massive productivity gains.

Just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it an undeniable truth.

Add a captcha or proof-of-work challenge in front of your website. Those are pretty much your only options.

If you really did spend days on research and methodology (which, to be clear, I'm not denying), that just makes it all the more disappointing that you decided to cap it all off with a long AI generated article. The article is what I'm focusing on because it's what you expect other people to actually read, and it's what you submitted here.

Ultimately, I'm just trying to get you to understand how this decision undermines the presumed goal of trying to convince the anti-AI crowd that they're wrong. It's simply not fair to expect humans to engage with the article in good faith when the article itself was not written by a human in good faith, regardless of its contents or the numbers it's based on. If you still disagree, so be it, I have nothing else to argue.

And for the record, I didn't engage with the methodology itself or its merits because I don't believe this question can be answered via an automated statistical approach, or really any sort of objective approach. The only way to truly evaluate the quality of AI generated code is for a skilled developer who is at least moderately familiar with the codebase to carefully analyze each commit, understanding what it does and looking for dumb mistakes that a human likely wouldn't have made in the same situation. But it's very unlikely that anyone will waste their time on that, and the conclusion would still be subjective anyway.

I have my own version of this as a browser extension paired with a backend that runs all new submissions through a small LLM to classify them, which catches more than a simple word match. Fight fire with fire, as they say.

Though I haven't used it much lately, because seeing half of the front page disappear when I enable it is a bit disheartening.