• rockSlayer ( rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) English
    23·
    5 days ago

    It is with great pride that I can say that a GCP-HPC pure-bash application I’ve been working is completely AI free.

    For the interested, it’s something I was working on while bored at work has been blessed as good use of time for the benefit of our dry lab. I’m hoping to be allowed to open source it. It’s basically a git-like interface between GCP head nodes and GCP buckets

    • Carrot ( Carrot@lemmy.today ) 
      5·
      4 days ago

      I’ve been working on a fully open source Obsidian Notes clone for over a year, and now that the decompilation AI tool just dropped I’m not sure people will believe me when I say I didn’t use AI

    • MangoCats ( MangoCats@feddit.it ) 
      6·
      5 days ago

      Congrats, we all had AI free apps 2 years ago, and for the 50 years before that… Keep calm and carry on, what worked then, still works now.

      Or, freak out - you just might consider having an agent like Opus 5.5 review your code and write you a report of its findings… if you don’t, others will - that’s the new landscape. If you do get “findings” in the report, I’d be curious to hear if any of them were both valid and concerning. I’m sure you won’t care about a lot of what it finds, but you might just be surprised by some things it does find.

            • Robust Mirror ( Robust_Mirror@aussie.zone ) 
              1·
              3 days ago

              That’s fine. It is probably worth noting human written code that has been reviewed by 1000s of humans are having valid critical bugs found in them by AI. No one is forcing you to use it but humans aren’t magically perfect just because you don’t like AI.

              • rockSlayer ( rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) English
                3·
                3 days ago

                Any critical security vulnerabilities will be the fault of Google. This app is a glorified filepusher manipulating bash strings into standard path structures for google buckets.

                Edit: to describe more precisely, it’s a bunch of bash functions that manipulate a bash string for the commands gcloud storage ls and gcloud storage cp. It has some useful functionality beyond that, such as tracking projects and project versions for collaborative purposes, but this is a mask on top of existing commands.

      • rm_rf ( rm_rf@sh.itjust.works ) 
        6·
        4 days ago

        Opus reviewing an entire codebase is pretty impressive. I use it a lot for some hobbyist stuff and its great at finding bugs, security issues, and just basic stuff like spelling/grammer mistakes.

        But of course, on Lemmy you’ll get downvoted because “ai bad”

        • MangoCats ( MangoCats@feddit.it ) 
          4·
          4 days ago

          of course, on Lemmy you’ll get downvoted because “ai bad”

          There was a time that was 100% true, I’m seeing a bit more from different points of view lately.

          24 months ago I wasn’t saying “ai bad” I was saying “ai nearly useless.”

  • gTsintzas ( gTsintzas@programming.dev ) English
    14·
    5 days ago

    I’m seeing Claude as a contributor all the time in random repos, but like, how does that even happen? In my experience with “agentic” coding, the agent does not get credit for commits, even if all diffs were made by them. What kind of workflows do people have for Claude to credit itself in a commit?

    • MangoCats ( MangoCats@feddit.it ) 
      20·
      5 days ago

      Claude has established precedent that Claude credits itself on commits unless you direct it not to. I don’t fight it, I would rather people looking back know… Yes, I used this tool - no, it’s not “responsible” for the code, I am.

    • Supercrunchy ( Supercrunchy@programming.dev ) 
      6·
      4 days ago

      Same for me, but that’s because I have a rule saying to the claude to not interact with git unless instructed, and I commit manually after reviewing every line of code changed. The bot runs in its own container, isolated from all credentials, so it can’t push commits and can’t access production. I also hate that the super long commit messages, so I just want to write it myself.

      Basically if you are surrenderinf your entire PC to AI, then you’ll not get those commit messages authored by claude.

      All my colleagues instead gave it access to the whole work pc including ssh keys, and the bot can do whatever the fuck it wants with the whole repo on github. It co-authors every single commit. Our master branch pushed straight to prod, and is not protected, and all our team is repo admin anyway. It’s complete insanity, bordering criminal negligence.

  • thr0w4w4y2 ( thr0w4w4y2@sh.itjust.works ) 
    3·
    4 days ago

    I write my own shell scripts and ruby on rails, but I ask Claude to create branches, manage commits, do all the force pushed to update it all, keep my local copy up to date, do all the things with the git origin etc. So Claude shows up as a contributor but didn’t do any of the work.

    I’m fine with that though because I’ve destroyed git history so many times, or messed up commits and broken everything, or needed to do some complex invert paths thing. It’s just better to leave all that to Claude.