logoalt Hacker News

seanhuntertoday at 7:09 AM2 repliesview on HN

Yes, and I think the reasons set out in TFA are interesting, which on my reading are:

1) Code is the least interesting bit in some ways - they’re trying to build not only rust but a community of experts around rust which is able to maintain and improve it in the long term and the authors of prs need to understand the code deeply and show a willingness to be part of that long run. Llm-generated code even if it looks polished doesn’t indicate a human author who deeply understands it and is willing to be part of that long term maintenance.

2) They don’t have (and don’t want to enforce) a community consensus that llms are good or llms are bad. They just want some rules written down so everyone knows where they stand and people of either camp (and none) can get on with it.

Seems a pretty reasonable approach to me although I don’t really use rust much so don’t have a vested interest.


Replies

nirbendavidtoday at 8:34 AM

[flagged]

incrudibletoday at 7:26 AM

No codebase worth being deeply invested in is deeply understood by anyone, including the original authors. The eternal maintenance argument is tiresome. If there is a problem in need of fixing, you figure it out, you do not depend on some author being available, and LLMs are exceptionally helpful in this regard as well. Then, if the LLM has trouble figuring out, so will another human. It is a code smell.

show 2 replies