News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Scaling Git at OpenAI by simianwords on Tuesday November 03, 2026 @01:33AM (#50348775)
And that some one can be an LLM. Frankly, these discussions are tiring because there's a false notion that humans have to be in the loop 100% of the time. This is untrue. LLMs are accurate enough that they can be left to do things on their own and human intervention is needed only for out of distribution instances.
Re:Scaling Git at OpenAI by whattheheckheck on Tuesday November 03, 2026 @02:28AM (#50349107)
Obviously there will be a maximum hit and then there will be no one to ask to solve your problem and youre gonna be up a creek
Re:Scaling Git at OpenAI by skydhash on Tuesday November 03, 2026 @06:52AM (#50350852)
> Does your manager at your job review every line of code you wrote or trust you based on your competence and reviews only a compressed portion?

The manager always has a very good stick: “Do a good job or you will be fired”. And me wanting food is well aligned to not produce buggy code. Or make my job harder in the future by writing unmaintainable code.

> Frankly, these discussions are tiring because there's a false notion that humans have to be in the loop 100% of the time

The code is written to process data. Someone needs to be aware of how it’s processed, so that when malformed data appears, we can collectively find where it happens. You can always play around with your own data (if regulation allows) but you need to respect your customers’ data. Not looking at the code jis just negligence.

Re:Scaling Git at OpenAI by simianwords on Tuesday November 03, 2026 @07:23AM (#50351139)
> The manager always has a very good stick: “Do a good job or you will be fired”. And me wanting food is well aligned to not produce buggy code. Or make my job harder in the future by writing unmaintainable code.

You are welcome to not use the model if it makes mistakes. Its weird that you are cooking up some edge case scenario to make your argument strong - everyone is incentivised to make things work well. Anthropic wants their models to perform well because that's why you will buy it.

> Someone needs to be aware of how it’s processed, so that when malformed data appears

Eh no. You need to know about only a compressed part of it, not 100%. Do you really claim that you need to know 100% of the code? This is not true today and certainly won't be true in the future. Hardly any code will be looked at by humans in the same way my manager doesn't look at my code.

Re:Scaling Git at OpenAI by skydhash on Tuesday November 03, 2026 @07:38AM (#50351278)
> Anthropic wants their models to perform well because that's why you will buy it.

What Anthropic wants and what happens in reality are two different things. But with code I write, I do control the process.

> Eh no. You need to know about only a compressed part of it, not 100%. Do you really claim that you need to know 100% of the code?

I know the code I write, and I know how it interfaces with external modules. When those interfaces don’t function as described, I look at the code if I have access to it. When I don’t, the party in control has always good incentives to produce good documentation. That knowledge is usually good for some time (years even)

> my manager doesn't look at my code

Because that’s not his responsibility, just like he’s not responsible for bugs and crashes. He’s responsible for the project and the team and you can be pretty sure that he’s looking at all at the information about those. Imagine if his own manager ask him about some details and he answers: “I don’t know, Claude is doing it”.