> All text and content submitted to our project, which includes code, descriptions, issues, and comments, must be human written.

> The use of GitHub Copilot and other assistive AI technologies is heavily discouraged.

Use this instead: https://github.com/obs-rust/obs-studio

Also, you said:

> The best performing model scores a 66.8. So does this prove LLMs can “understand” the code? I would argue that the answer to this is “no”.

How did you reach that conclusion?

No matter what you think "aligned" means here, publicly releasing advancements in a scientific field shouldn't be gatekept or be perceived as misaligned in any possible way.

If anything, the true misalignment comes from people trying to prevent these advancements from happening or being disclosed, or putting research behind BS paywalls.

Yes, what a terrible thing to advance the field significantly and release the results publicly for everyone. Truly despicable.

If someone answers your question with "Claude says..." it's a clear indication that you should've asked the question to an LLM yourself before bothering a human.

This is just the new version of LMGTFY.

> AI is the reason our software stack is overengineered to the 10th degree

Complete BS.

typical hn

It's also ironic how the "every programmer I know has basically gone insane over the last couple of years" sentence applies to author of the article as well. The ego, luddism, and fear of change is real.

> The sleight of hand misdirects the reader away from the main way bugs are eliminated: by dedicating engineering resources to it.

Perhaps the amount of bugs comes from using a C-like language that requires meticulous manual care to avoid writing runtime bugs.

Even C++ would be a safer choice because of RAII.

When you have to dedicate significant resources to avoid/fix runtime issues that are made impossible at compile time by other languages, the programmer isn't entirely at fault.

Did it find any real potential issue, optimization/simplification opportunities, or sparked any thought-provoking discussion within your organization?

Or was it purely a net negative experience?

The grandma that would have phoned her nephew to fix the phone will still do the same thing now. She will not have magically switched to querying LLMs after a lifetime of technological illiteracy.

The tech-savvy person that uses AI today would have been more than capable than figuring out how to fix their router by using Google even without prior networking skills/experience 5-10 years ago.

Using AI to solve these problems is a novelty for a specific subset of the population. And the topic does matter.

Even the somewhat tech-illiterate mom would have been able to Google a recipe 10 years ago, or watch an Instagram reel 5 years ago. They were surely not going to call their friends to ask instructions on how to make an apple pie.

Pretending this is an AI novelty is indeed disingeneous.