alt Hacker NewsI'm reminded of the recent "vibe coded" OCaml fiasco[1].
In particular, the PR author's response to this question:
> Here's my question: why did the files that you submitted name Mark Shinwell as the author?
> > Beats me. AI decided to do so and I didn't question it.
The same author submitted a similar PR to Julia as well. Both were closed in-part due to the significant maintenance burden these entirely LLM-written PR's would create.
> This humongous amount of code is hard to review, and very lightly tested. (You are only testing that basic functionality works.) Inevitably the code will be full of problems, and we (the maintainers of the compiler) will have to pay the cost of fixing them. But maintaining large pieces of plausible-in-general-but-weird-in-the-details code is a large burden.
Setting aside the significant volume of code being committed at once (13K+ lines in the OCaml example), the maintainers would have to review code even the PR author didn't review - and would likely fall into the same trap many of us have found ourselves in while reviewing LLM-generated code... "Am I an idiot or is this code broken? I must be missing something obvious..." (followed by wasted time and effort).
The PR author even admitted they know little about compilers - making them unqualified to review the LLM-generated code.
This exchange is so funny. That much time around LLMs and no human feedback really seems to have broken that guy's brain.