Over 100k Infected Repos Found on GitHub

Re:Over 100k Infected Repos Found on GitHub by simonw on Thursday February 29, 2024 @10:00AM (#39550174)

It's a worthwhile trade. I've been able to produce a substantial amount of reliable, working code with the assistance of LLMs over the past year - code I would have not been able to produce otherwise simply due to lack of time.

Why review code at all if you think your coworkers are infallible?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Over 100k Infected Repos Found on GitHub by bee_rider on Thursday February 29, 2024 @10:48AM (#39550936)

I think you are both saying that it is OK to use LLMs, but you have to check the output.

It looks like there’s been a communication hiccup or something; I think you are saying that the LLM user should treat LLM code as if it is written by an unreliable team-mate who might copy-paste from the internet, and check it.

Jprete seems to be talking about just receiving a PR from a person who didn’t do that checking and just directly is using the LLM code.

I agree with you, but I think it is worth noting that

> This is not a worthwhile trade

> It's a worthwhile trade

The difference here is not in whether or not the trade is worthwhile; you are just talking about two different trades .

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Over 100k Infected Repos Found on GitHub by simonw on Thursday February 29, 2024 @10:56AM (#39551042)

Yeah, I think you're right.

I don't think it's OK for a coworker to contribute a PR generated by an LLM without having already reviewed it and being ready to declare that they are confident in its quality.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Over 100k Infected Repos Found on GitHub by dartos on Thursday February 29, 2024 @10:13AM (#39550408)

I’m fine with LLM code as long as someone actually understands what it’s doing.

[ Parent | on HN ]