[petesergeant]

Claude-directed code by someone being conscientious and getting involved in the important decisions is going to be better than a whole swathe of existing open-source that was hand-written.

[Perz1val]

Maybe if it's a business level tool made in house with claude vs contracted to a software house in India. Never for a compiler, who even is that person?

[TeMPOraL]

> Never for a compiler, who even is that person?

Why do you care?

It's a stranger from the Internet. Same as with any other software you're using. In particular, same as with any OSS tool you're using.

[andsoitis]

> > Never for a compiler, who even is that person?

> Why do you care?

> It's a stranger from the Internet. Same as with any other software you're using. In particular, same as with any OSS tool you're using.

Don't you think that even if you don't know someone personally, you can calibrate your trust in their ability based on reputation, track record.

[TeMPOraL]

Yes. But we usually start with a high default, and only recalibrate if there's a specific reason in a given situation (e.g. there's been a specific user or sets of users involved in spreading malware, and software in question could've been targeted).

[petesergeant]

> you can calibrate your trust in their ability based on reputation, track record

rarely. How many of the libraries you pull from package managers do you actually know the authors of?

[geraldwhen]

“Better”, maybe or maybe not. But there’s an underlying truth here. If you’ve ever LOOKED at the open source libs you use, some of them are very very rough.

Going in to a project hoping to make a change and seeing no tests and spaghetti used to be soul crushing. These days I’d have Claude go refactor and add tests and make pull requests for me to look at to fix it.

[bakugo]

I'm sure that single 800k line commit was created in a very conscientious and involved way.

[andytratt]

oof