On 23/07/26 at 18:00 +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > I'll leave aside the fact that this classic behaviour brings to ~5x > tokens consumption just because people are too lazy to reread and do > prefer the models to fix their own crap based on CI outcome (or the fact > that sometimes they modify the tests to make them pass rather than fix > the code).
AI put aside, this sounds a lot like "CI is for lazy programmers; real programmers just reread their code to confirm that it will work perfectly". > We have a right to expect better from people. Just because a ton of them > do trust enough their agents to upload on their github/gitlab/whatever > account is no excuse to decide that it should be the standard we adhere > to. > > I'm sorry, but what I see here is what I would bluntly call > accelerationist hype. I know you (and some others) are totally hyped by > LLMs, to the point that you might maybe believe they achieve greater > than what they do. > > I'm not. I'm no doomer either, I use these tools on a daily basis. But I > believe the more automated and fast-paced a tool is, the more safety > nets are required, and do not allow any LLM to sign or upload stuff for > me. My points in this subthread are mainly that: 1) I don't think that a GR is the correct place to do detailed technical design [of safety nets]; 2) I think that it's better to ensure that people feel responsible, and to let them decide which safety nets are necessary for them, rather than arbitrarily decide that 'git commit' or 'git push' should be excluded from the scope of agents. On 23/07/26 at 19:17 +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > What I want to do is to demand those using these tools to not give up > their skills and intellect in favour of letting an LLM do all the job. Which skill am I giving up by asking my agent to 'git commit && git push' for me, instead of doing it manually? Note that for 'git push', my personal safety net would agree with you (my agent cannot 'git push' because it cannot access the required credentials). For 'git commit' however, I routinely ask my agent to 'git commit', and find it very useful: after several interactions to design a specific change, the agent is usually in a very good position to write a detailed commit message capturing the various design choices that were made during the discussion (while humans tend to be more lazy and write shorter commit messages). And I don't see what I would gain (except potential errors) from asking the agent to generate a commit message, and then commit myself manually. Lucas
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
