Can't believe you only accept people that write code by hand, stop discriminating people that write with their feet.
/j
I used to work with a guy who was so afraid of losing the use of his hands in "a freak tractor accident" that he claims to have taught himself to type with his feet.
Can we not change the name of what we do? It's not handcrafted coding, it's coding. The other variant is vibecoding.
Vibe coding is when you don't do any of it yourself or understand what's happening.
If you just use e.g the autocomplete tools in your IDE, or occasionally prompt the AI to generate test cases for you, that's not really vibe coding, but it should be enough that you shouldn't be on this list.
should really note that autocomplete comes in ai-free flavors too
Lol, emacs has auto complete. LLMs my ass. XD
Vibecoding is using AI in any form whatsoever. It doesnt need to have a bad connotation. You're conflating it with slop coding. I'm not fond of them still
Kind of funny (or sad?) that lemmy itself probably wouldn't make it on the list, given they seem adamant on allowing LLM coding: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy-docs/pull/414/changes
~~Curiously enough I wasn't able to actually find any lemmy commit marked as created with the help of AI, other than some bug located by AI without indication that an AI fix was used. I wonder if that means either they don't adhere to their own rule, or whether they're not actually using AI but just felt like really being pro-AI anyway. Why though? I'm so curious.~~
Update: seems like they don't put it into the commit log, just the merge request info: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/pull/6304
Are we allowed to use LLMs to review code as long as we make changes by hand?
Well I'm not the site maintainer, but I'd argue that this would be fine. The question is about whether you're writing the code yourself: understanding what you're writing line by line rather than taking an "agent" to do the work, robbing you of that understanding.
Accepting criticism/review from a bot or a human for that matter wouldn't interfere with that understanding, so I'd argue that it doesn't apply.
There is however the ethical question of paying for such a bot, given that it's the product of massive IP theft and environmental arson. It probably doesn't apply to this specific declaration though.
One does not need to pay to use those LLM bots to be unethical. You pay by letting it examine your code.
What if I just copy/paste from stack overflow?
Get on the AI industry hit list here.
Nah, just kidding.
If anything the AI companies would probably use it to know which code to scrape since the models tend to collapse when trained on their own output
👋 If you would like to add your name to the directory, here's how to do it!
Sounds interesting but I'm not sure I can provide proof. I work on closed source software for a company and don't really have any online presence outside of this account.
I do everything the normal way (no LLMs) and am probably the only person left at my company doing so.
Perhaps submit yourself anyway and just put that explanation into the pull request. I don't think the list is designed to be super bullet proof, I was merged without directly linking any code too (although I suppose it's not too hard to find). At the end of the day, a lot of the internet runs on the honor system still, for better and for worse.
Sounds complicated, I'll ask Claude to do it for me 👌
LOL
I tried resisting the urge, but the dad in me is too strong
Sometimes but I suck in general.
"Sucking at something is there first step toward being really good at something!" -- Jake the Dog
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.