Yeah, either this guy's totally insane or it could even be somebody who's an AI skeptic who's just flooding projects with really dumb PRs just to show the risks and get people skeptical about the use of AI in open source (Takes on my folie hat)
that's a grifter doing grifting. there was a thread on /g/ about this guy the other day, anons digged out much of its past as a failure / grifter in many areas, running away with the money at the first problem
When looking at this history here on HN, he started out in the poker world. I'm not sure if he played, but he wrote a poker engine or something. In my experience, the venn diagram for professional poker players, crypto enthusiasts and grifters have a lot of overlap.
But for this guy specifically there's practically complete radio silence during the crypto era. It's only recently with all the AI noise that he's become active here on HN again.
function estimate_method_targets(func_name::Symbol, types::Tuple)
# Conservative estimate
# In a real implementation, we'd query the method table
return 2 # Assume multiple possibilities
end
Hilarious. Was this model trained on XKCD [0] by any chance?
Among all the other problems with this... They describe [1] their contributions as "steering the AI" and "keeping it honest", which evidently they did not.
As an aside, he originally titled the thread "A complete guide to building static binaries with Julia (updated for 1.12)", with no mention of AI. That got me excited every time I opened the Discourse, until I remembered it was this slop. :/
Lot of people are criticising this guy but we all benefit from having an example to show people - this, please don’t do what this guy is doing. Please read the generated code, understand it, edit it and then submit it.
If anyone’s answer to “why does your PR do this” is “I don’t know, the AI did it and I didn’t question it” then they need a time out.
The biggest mistake, AI or not, is dropping a 10K+ PR. 300~500 LOC is how far one should be going, unless they're doing some automated refactoring. E.g. formatting the entire StaticCompiler.jl source. This should've been a distinct PR, preferably by a maintainer.
It could first judge whether the PR is frivolous, then try to review it, then flag a human if necessary.
The problem is that Github, or whatever system hosts the process, should actively prevent projects from being DDOS-ed with PR reviews since using AI costs real money.
It's been stated like a consultant giving architectural advice. The problem is that it is socially acceptable to use llms for absolutely anything and also in bulk. Before, you strove to live up to your own standards and people valued authenticity. Now it seems like we are all striving for the holy grail of conventional software engineering: The Average.
It is absolutely not socially acceptable, and people like yourself blithely declaring that it is is getting tiring. Maybe it’s socially acceptable in your particular circles to not give a single shit, take no pride in the slop you throw at people, and expect them to wade through it no questions asked? But not for the rest of us.
Maybe I didn't clearly state my point. That was a comment about my experience earlier here on HN, someone was asked whether or not they've used AI to write and their response was "why not use it if it's better than my own", if that is the reasoning that people give and they are not self-aware enough to be embarrassed about it, I think it must mean that there's a lot of people who think like that.
This isn't just "making mistakes." It's so profoundly obnoxious that I can't imagine what you've actually been doing during your apparently 30 years of experience as a software developer, such that you somehow didn't understand, or don't, why submitting these PRs is completely unacceptable.
The breezy "challenge me on this" and "it's just a proof of concept" remarks are infuriating. Pull requests are not conversation starters. They aren't for promoting something you think people should think about. The self-absorption and self-indulgence beggar belief.
Your homepage repeatedly says you're open to work and want someone to hire you. I can't imagine anybody looking at those PRs or your behavior in the discussions and concluding that you'd be a good addition to a team.
The cluelessness is mind-boggling.
It's so bad that I'm inclined to wonder whether you really are human -- or whether you're someone's stealthy, dishonest LLM experiment.
