Most active commenters
  • userbinator(4)

←back to thread

Show HN: Port Kill – A lightweight macOS status bar development port monitor

(github.com)
125 points lexokoh | 15 comments | 24 Aug 25 03:08 UTC | HN request time: 0.452s | source | bottom
1. _def ◴[24 Aug 25 05:16 UTC] No.45001594[source]▶
I'm not looking forward to the near future where it will become harder and harder to distinguish little projects like this from AI generated tools.
replies(3): >>45001694 #>>45001697 #>>45001732 #
2. userbinator ◴[24 Aug 25 05:41 UTC] No.45001694[source]▶
The README already has a rather repugnant LLM-ish feel to it; lots of lists and verboseness, while saying very little.

Also, this is a perplexing choice (which also serves to illustrate the above point regarding verboseness):

    White background with red center: 1-9 processes (some development servers) 
    White background with orange center: 10+ processes (many development servers)
replies(2): >>45001706 #>>45002047 #
3. AbuAssar ◴[24 Aug 25 05:42 UTC] No.45001697[source]▶
the ascii tree in "Project Structure" is a dead giveaway that AI is used in this project
4. lexokoh ◴[24 Aug 25 05:44 UTC] No.45001706[source]▶
A lot of ReadMe's are generated with AI. Doesn't really mean anything.
replies(2): >>45001729 #>>45005315 #
5. userbinator ◴[24 Aug 25 05:50 UTC] No.45001729{3}[source]▶
You're right. A lot of words that don't really mean anything; and that's exactly why you should not do it if you want actual humans to read it.
6. pacifika ◴[24 Aug 25 05:50 UTC] No.45001732[source]▶
Why would you need to do that?
replies(1): >>45001748 #
7. userbinator ◴[24 Aug 25 05:53 UTC] No.45001748[source]▶
To filter out the spam.
8. nojs ◴[24 Aug 25 07:08 UTC] No.45002047[source]▶
> Quit: Exits the application
replies(1): >>45006284 #
9. jelder ◴[24 Aug 25 16:06 UTC] No.45005315{3}[source]▶
Whenever I see a README or worse, PR description that was obviously generated by an LLM, my immediate response is "if you couldn't be bothered to write this, why should I bother reading this?"
replies(1): >>45005445 #
10. 1gn15 ◴[24 Aug 25 16:19 UTC] No.45005445{4}[source]▶
Because it provides useful information, and is easier to read compared to reading the code directly.
replies(2): >>45006248 #>>45006683 #
11. ◴[24 Aug 25 17:57 UTC] No.45006248{5}[source]▶
12. johnisgood ◴[24 Aug 25 18:00 UTC] No.45006284{3}[source]▶
I would have never figured that one out, had to ask an LLM! Thank god for LLMs.
13. jelder ◴[24 Aug 25 18:54 UTC] No.45006683{5}[source]▶
Except, no it doesn’t.

In the case of a pull request, I am not about to trust some LLM that has no business context and can only pretend to guess at the “why” of a change.

To understand the “what” of a change, you have to actually read the code. This doesn’t belong in the pull request description most of the time.

replies(1): >>45008992 #
14. e-clinton ◴[25 Aug 25 00:09 UTC] No.45008992{6}[source]▶
You’re implying that if someone uses AI to write something, the person doesn’t then read it/iterate on it to ensure correctness. Serious “get off my lawn” vibes here.
replies(1): >>45009367 #
15. userbinator ◴[25 Aug 25 01:29 UTC] No.45009367{7}[source]▶
the person doesn’t then read it/iterate on it to ensure correctness.

As someone who has had to deal with drive-by PRs on open-source projects, which were a problem before but have now gotten much worse in volume as they are mostly AI-generated, yes.