pxc

> In a post on his blog, software engineer Indradhanush Gupta writes that he is no lon­ger crediting Anthropic’s Claude on his code changes, because "adding an LLM as co-author gives you a way for you to shirk responsibility for mistakes." Pressed by commenters that this sounds like a pretext for hiding LLM use, Gupta insists that it is not.

I use LLMs every day at work. At the same time, I've never had an LLM appear as a "co-author", not because I'm making any effort to hide my LLM use, but because I've never been comfortable letting an LLM commit code. I use staging changes, hunk by hunk (or sometimes even line-by-line), as my review process. I don't want LLMs performing any git operations that add or push commits. I imagine I'm not the only one.

PS: If you want some bumpers to help avoid having your LLMs commit code, configuring Git for commit signing and blocking access to your signing key, agent socket, write access to your local Git config, etc., is pretty effective in my experience.

I get what you're saying but I think what you're describing is more of a temperament more than anything else. Some people, inside and outside academia, have a kind of "root causes" or "first principles" temperament. Others are more inclined to build incrementally on existing knowledge, and less inclined to revisit the foundations.

I think you're right that lots of people with tons of training, expertise, or experience are (sometimes very disappointingly) disinclined to engage in first-principles thinking. But I would expect most academicians to at least know what it is.

I thought viruses weren't considered to be microbes. Was I mistaken? Is there a broader category that includes things like bacteria and also viruses?

Knowing what first principles reasoning is isn't the same thing as being willing to re-teach a discipline from the ground up for a stranger rather than first pointing to the existing literature that, perfectly or imperfectly, already addresses a topic.

That's quite a generous decision. Thanks a lot for doing your work in public and in multiple languages.

> Sadly people from the academia [...] equate [first principles thinking] with exam based memorization or delegation to authority.

In what departments and at what universities? The term "first principles" comes from academia. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a faculty member in any philosophy department doesn't understand what reasoning from first principles is. I'd be surprised if any working mathematician thinks of "memorization" or delegating to authority rather than axiomatization. What experiences led you to say this?

> I'm really struggling to see how to make architectural decisions with an agent. It's great when you're at a total loss for ideas

I feel the opposite, like if I go to an agent without first knowing what I want to build, I'll never figure out what I'm doing or why and it'll run away from me.

I pretty much always go back and forth and have the agent write out a plan to a file and review it myself in my text editor. I still sometimes end up with surprises I disagree with, but I don't really find it to be true that the LLM ends up trying to "drive all of the thinking".

When I'm thinking through an architecture, I not only instruct it to refrain from writing any code, I don't even necessarily tell the agent what I'm trying to build.

In centuries gone past, members of the bourgeoisie would be directed by their doctors to summer homes and country estates so they could "convalesce in the countryside". It seems there was something to it, or at least there is now. (Even back then, it was explicitly about "fresh air".)

When I used to go to parties in college, I was known within my friend group for participating in multiple conversations at once, flitting from one group to another. One of my friends later told me he thought it was impressive, but in fact I just couldn't help but hear all of the conversations at once, and if multiple groups were talking about interesting things, I would find myself torn between them, and end up bouncing back and forth.

> We must be living in a completely different world then.

I'm not even a real Nix old-timer, but I've been using NixOS on the job for roles in IT operations and software development for more than 10 years now.

And for a few years before that, I used Nix on a personal basis as a college student.

I'm aware of the rapid growth in user interest, of course; I was there for it!

My two favorite non-fiction sections of the bookstore are dead and dying. The computer section, if it still exists, is just things like _Excel for Dummies_, and the philosophy books have all been pushed out by self help and dime-store "metaphysics".

But I've started reading programming books again recently, on my e-reader and on my laptop. People are still writing them, and they're still good. We should all go buy some!

For my own usage, I don't see chatbots as supplanting textbooks. If anything, they pair well; reading a book from cover to cover gives me the breadth and depth I want, but LLMs are there for tangents and questions that come up along the way. I was reading a book and chatting with Claude like tihs just yesterday, for a few hours.

"Green card" literally refers to US permanent residency cards; it's called that because the physical cards issued by the US are/were green. "Other contexts" are riffing on actual green cards as a metaphor, and if speakers in other contexts want to talk about legal specificities, they should use an accurate term...

You have to be either a committer in general or a maintainer of a specific package to merge PRs into Nixpkgs. Contributors' PR approvals in Nixpkgs are just an informal signal for maintainers and committers to consider. And maintainers can only merge changes related to the packages they maintain, not other random changes.