Was just looking at commits and came across a commit and its revert
original commit: https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/commit/d046525de39315d...
```
- if (!ptr)
- ptr = malloc(num * size);
- else if (ptr == do_calloc)
+ if (!ptr || ptr == do_calloc)
ptr = calloc(num, size);
Written with claude. This is a good example of what slips through LLM attention. It forces all allocations to be calloc as if it is a strict upgrade. For large and recursive allocations, this becomes a significant cost.
reverted in https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/commit/7db73ad9a1b8721...
if you read the description of revert half carefully, it's easy to tell that even that was written by an LLM .
I can understand the sentiment of whoever posted the original thread.
For those commenting, I suggest you read the post linked by the rsync author:
https://medium.com/@tridge60/rsync-and-outrage-d9849599e5a0
(Disclosure: while I haven't talked with him in years, Tridge was my colleague and mentor for many years. I feel it is worth considering his view before joining a crusade)
This should be the top comment.
I think it's pretty sad that he even had to write it. Quite a lot of judgement from people who aren't paying his bills.
The title at least sounds less like judgement and more analysis and more about AI assistance (and claude in particular) than rsync. Maybe I am too used to postmortems!
> I thought it would be a good idea to do the core structure for the new test suite in public on master first though given all the rage that has generated maybe that was a bad idea.
I don't entirely understand what this is saying. People wouldn't have been outraged if only the tests had been updated and/or he pushed solely on master - but he pushed breaking changes onto the release branch(es) too. Breaking workflows that have worked for years is a prime way to get people irate, and then seeing "Claude" in the commits just pours gasoline onto the fire.
It seems that wasn't the Claude part, though I haven't seen a full analysis of exactly what broke. I also only saw one report: are there multiple, or do you just perceive that?
Rsync has many options: I can totally believe that fixing a bug in one place broke someone's usage, to be fair.
I think that's an extremely well done response on his part.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but a few points that look a little suspicious:
- The release with the highest number of attributed bugs is the release _right before_ the first release with Claude-coauthored commits, released in January; is there a chance that unattributed LLM-authored commits made it into this release?
- The release attribution methodology is not great, since it will tend to attribute bugs introduced in a minor version update to the longest-lived patch release of that minor version. I doubt that 3.4.1 actually introduced a lot of bugs, but since it was released a day after 3.4.0, bugs that were introduced in that release get attributed to 3.4.1.
- Relatedly, more recent releases have had less time to have bugs filed against them, so there may be a bit of a bias toward evaluating recent releases as less buggy.
Agree. From the article:
> Here's my favorite part, though. Digging into the data, one of the first things that jumped out at me with blinding clarity was that the worst release, by far, in rsync history was entirely prior to the introduction of Claude ... And yet nobody noticed.
Language really does suggest the article's author does have a dog in this fight and is cloaking opinion in fancy statistics jargon. "Blinding clarity"? All you have to do is draw a plot. And anyway, v3.4.1 was 2025-01-16, technically well within the AI assisted coding era and before attribution was becoming standard practice.
Also from the article:
> "Claude clearly made things worse" &emdash; the main claim
This article was clearly generated by AI, yet I found no mention/attribution of that by author.
How likely is it than someone who vibe codes articles would also vibe code the underlying analysis and be eager to accept an outcome that is highly validating of that person’s workflow? I’d say very.
He did admit as much:
> "The scripts used to fetch the data, collate it into a DuckDB database file, construct the views on that DB, and then do the statistical analysis on that data, were indeed written by GLM 5.1, as was the HTML and much of the original prose for the final report webpage you're looking at right now."
But: "After posting this on Hacker News and recieving [sic] almost no substantive input, discussion, or response on the actual content of the article, I decided to rewrite all of the prose in my own voice. If anyone complains about my verbosity or sentence structure — as they usually do, which is the reason I originally let the AI write the prose, among other reasons obsoleted by templating — they can go fuck themselves."
So rewritten in his own voice. Maybe the m-dashes are from GLM, maybe from the author.
Are the numbers wrong? That's the only relevant thing here.
Also, humans do use em dashes, just FYI.
Yes, I do for example.
And the author discussed the use of AI pretty exhaustively in point 0 of the post.
You can use LLMs in multiple ways, from very hands on to make local changes to completely hands-off.
I've seen plenty of code that was LLM generated but the commit message itself did not have the co-author attached to it. This only seems to happen when someone's interface to the codebase is completely though Claude/Codex/..., and those are usually the most verbose commits, and yet they say the least, because they just summarize the code changes, not the why.
On the other hand I've seen developers using Claude as a tool. They have VSCode open and a terminal window with Claude and go back and forth, ensuring they write correct code, and leave the plumbing to Claude.
So maybe the author of the code started off small and it grew over time?
I would expect a mature code base like rsync to have a lot of unit tests and integration tests and frankly if there's not enough that such bugs haven't been caught; that should be your first use of LLMs in order to setup some deterministic guidelines when you do start making changes to your actual code.
I have been experimenting with both aforementioned styles with interesting results.
> I would expect a mature code base like rsync to have a lot of unit tests and integration tests
You might be surprised. C applications which interact heavily with the system - like rsync - can be tricky to test comprehensively, as it's nontrivial to inject faults into system calls. If the application is architected to support this kind of testing, or uses a HAL, that may make matters easier - but an older codebase like rsync probably isn't.
I've had a local LLM spending weeks trying to write tests. then debug those tests. then write antipatterns and patterns for those tests.
It's amusing. It's not terrible, but tests arn't going to save you from a malicious tester.
Your first and second points seem to contradict each other because if all of the bugs for 3.4.1 should be attributed to 3.4.0, that pushes the timetable back even further that unattributed LLM commits would have to have been being committed to the project, which just makes your point even more absurd.
Which brings me to my overall response, which is that there is absolutely no evidence, and nothing even intimating this hypothesis, that LLM commits were secretly being added to earlier releases before they were attributed, and that's why the rate of bugs is higher. There's no reason to think that it's an unreasonable thing to think, and there's no evidence for that whatsoever unless you beg the question and assume that higher bug counts must automatically indicate AI involvement, which is just circular reasoning. You're essentially just making up a hypothesis out of thin air to preserve your point.
Regarding your third point, that one's fair, but I've done the analysis and I can put it up if you want, as to how long it usually takes to find bugs and how far through the release cycle we are for each version.
Sorry, I should have said this explicitly in the original comment: I think you're likely _correct_ that there isn't a clear increase in the rate of bugs attributable to LLM-authored code in rsync. Your analysis provides evidence in this direction; these are just the things that made me go "hmm". They're not accusations or claims that the conclusion is invalid. But they're definitely things to be curious about.
Regarding unlabeled LLM-authored commits, I don't think it's unreasonable in general to think that an open-source project might have had unlabeled LLM-authored commits at some point before 2026. Looking more closely at rsync's recent commit history, I think it's less likely in this case. There's just a low number of commits in general, _until_ large batches of Claude-authored commits start showing up early this year. But this then raises some questions about the bugs-per-commit metric; it does correct for something like "size of release", but also obscures a significant shift in commit velocity that may be downstream of adding LLM development tools to the workflow.
Like I said, I don't have a dog in this fight, and I try not to approach sorts of questions from a position of explicit advocacy. I do think it's an interesting question, though, and we should try to understand what the data is actually telling us.
Isn't the metric that you've used "bugs per commit ~ per new line of code" going to miss the issue?
All code is technical debt.
If rsync releases used to have 500 lines changed and 5 bugs in and AI-powered rsync releases have 50000 lines and 500 bugs, it's the same bugs/line but much worse experience for the user?
I've not looked into the details of this case and I do use AI assistance coding at work but in my experience, the problem is that it's too easy to write lots of code and therefore hard to review the huge volumes of code and this analysis will ignore that?
edit: actually your table shows there weren't unusually large numbers of commits in this release, so perhaps my initial skepticism shows a bias I have?
OpenBSD used to have sqlite in base, but the code churn rate was too high to review. This was well before the recent LLM craze, so a human (perhaps not a normal one, though) already sufficies to generate too many changes for others to check for errors.
Let's start with most outright alarming error - the claude statistics are taken out of whole 2 data points
That's sort of the point. There isn't enough data to extrapolate, and yet that's exactly what those outraged about AI were doing, and when you do do the very minimal types of analyses (permutation tests, and looking at distributions, mostly) that are actually valid, safe, standard, and useful to do on such low amounts of date, again, no evidence for the outrage shows up, and the two releases look so normal that it sort of shows no one would've cared if they hadn't known or found out that Claude was involved.
I really think this a much better standard of evidence — limited though it is — to outrage-fueled cherry-picked anecdotes, which is what has been driving this whole thing. If you disagree, and think the outrage should go one when I've shown there's an absence of evidence entirely for it (although of course, that's not evidence of absence; maybe I'll have to eat my words 5 releases down the line, but appealing to that now feels like a Russell's Teapot), would you care to explain why?
I know you’re defending your work here but this behavior does absolutely nothing to help your point.
Fair point. Let me edit (if I still can) to tone it down.
The interpretations of the p-value is also alarming. One of the first thing they teach you in statistics class is: “an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”.
This analysis showed that there is indeed an absence of evidence, but it concludes there is evidence of absence.
Traditional p-hacking is done by oversampling and overtesting. If you do 20 analysis on average one will show p < 0.05 by random chance. This analysis is doing the inverse of that. Under-sampling, and concluding with p > 0.05
> This analysis showed that there is indeed an absence of evidence, but it concludes there is evidence of absence.
I tried pretty hard to avoid saying that, can you point me at how to rephrase? The point I'm trying to make is just that there is absolutely no evidence at all for what people are saying with such absolutism and claimed objectivity (that Claude made rsync worse), and thus it doesn't justify the outrage.
> Under-sampling, and concluding with p > 0.05
How would I avoid under-sampling here? And if you're going to say it's because I only have 2 data points, well, the side making the positive claim — that Claude made rsync worse — only had two as well, and unremarkable ones at that, as I've tried very hard to show.
Edited that claim, and made several clarifications elsewhere. The whole point of this analysis is that outrage is unjustified on the basis of two totally statistically unremarkable releases that no one would have remarked on pre-AI (my further proof of this is that there was a pre-AI remarkably broken release, and no one did comment!) and zero positive evidence outside cherry-picked anecdotes for any negative impact. We should wait for outrage and version pinning and cancelation until there is evidence, no? I'm just trying to say that these specific releases are unremarkable, and there's no evidence at all of harm currently; I'm not trying to build any kind of predictive model for future Claude releases to say anything grander than "these specific releases are fine, what are we freaking out about?", not some claim about what Claude-exposed releases will look like or trend like in the future or in general.
The concept you need here is "Statistical Power".
The ELI5 version is that there are two mistakes you can make when looking at a P value:
Type I error, where your P value is falsely low. In the experiment being discussed here, it would lead one to conclude that AI code is worse. Otherwise known as a false positive.
Type II error, where your P value is falsely high, leading you to conclude that AI code is no different. Otherwise known as a false negative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(statistics)
One can calculate statistical power for a given experimental protocol.
My hunch is that if you did this, you would find this experiment is grossly under-powered.
This means you can't make the "absence of evidence" claim.
Perhaps in an “everyday language” way, but not in the technical, statistical sense.
In an underpowered statistical study, a claim that two experimental conditions did not differ are not persuasive.
There's a meta-level of irony here that's important to note.
TFA is defending the use of AI, and it very clearly (to me) used AI to analyze the data and present the results.
In doing so, the author used statistics in a way they do not appear to understand, and ended up making numerous false claims (you can see the thread discussing these here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48417626 )
In short, the study doesn't have sufficient statistical power, and is making "no difference" claims that aren't justified.
The meta-irony is this: the author used an LLM to interpret data in this study, and seems to have made the same category of mistake (confidently asserting falsehoods) that the study was supposed to be investigating (confidently submitting bad commits to the rsync project).
Unfortunately for the people mad about this, I predict the only thing they will accomplish by pressuring the rsync maintainers, is to discourage everyone else from responsibly disclosing their use of AI. You’re just going to make people disable Claude attribution on their commits to avoid drama.
I never care about AI usage disclosure, because I don't believe that human produced code is necessarily better than AI produced code, unless it's someone I personally know.
People need to be responsible for code they commit and push anyways. This has never changed. Whether the code is written by hand, by their cat walking over keyboard, or by AI, is not my concern.
A project's code quality can decline for all kinds of reasons. I don't think it's productive to laser-focus on whether it's produced by AI or not. That's a distraction. If a person just want to find excuse to criticize AI, and another person wants to fight back and defend AI, sure, go for it. But that's not how you would want to assess a project's code quality.
> People need to be responsible for code they commit and push anyways.
Well the GPL (which rsync is licensed under) says: "This program comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY" so actually nobody is responsible for anything.
I think they meant in terms of karma/reputation for the individual, and the project. Traditionally open source is heavily based on these social currencies.
Nobody is suing the maintainer for support here so this is completely irrelevant.
something as simple as requiring sign-offs like the DCO maybe relevant to people who care. I do think the driveby stuff may get smaller. People dont need to get stuff upstream. I have lots of patches I am keeping downmstrea and instead have a trigger system when new packages updates drop into debian and i rebuild the package with my patches on top using quill. Other systems like gentoo basically always supported this flow.
So - why bother forking or going upstream? maybe its selfish. I think publishing the patches are cool but I feel less of a need to force other people into doing what I want or even writing every possible configuration or solution. I just hack it for me
> You’re just going to make people disable Claude attribution on their commits to avoid drama.
People should be doing this regardless of drama. No reason to provide free advertising for trillion dollar corporations. Generated-by trailers are only relevant when contributing to third party projects, in that case disclosure is polite.
The value of the Claude attribution is that you can tell at a glance who used AI.
I don't care about the advertising angle. We all know Claude by now. I want some indicator that AI was used.
At my employer, if AI is not used, it shows up on your performance report and you’ll be told if you don’t start using it, you will be dismissed. I work at a medium sized successful YC-backed SaaS. So here, the attribution is meaningless - they look at your Bedrock and LLM API calls as well as Claude Code history.
If the company policy is to have everyone using it then everyone is going to assume you're using it.
I don't see a need for an attribution line in this case.
> they look at your Bedrock and LLM API calls as well as Claude Code history.
This is fucking insane. How does this correlate with productivity in any way? The results are all that matters, who cares how you got there?
Not currently. Each IC's report is kept private unless they voluntarily share it, and IC's don't have visibility into other IC's Claude Code or Cursor logs. I think we're moving toward a model where it will be easier to correlate commits with chats, but timeline is not clear.
And why do you want to know that? So you can call our projects slop? Ostracize us?
> while reviewing
As I said, disclosure is polite when contributing code to third party projects which will undergo human review.
No need for such things in one's own projects.
Ghostwriting is a thing.
> I don't know why you're so defensive.
Check it out:
https://lobste.rs/s/29pm2f/llm_generated_submissions_should_...
https://lobste.rs/s/ytim7h/collection_small_low_stakes_low_e...
That's not at all what someone who wants to "tell at a glance who used AI" actually wants to know.
It matters when I'm contributing to their projects. In that case I'll go out of my way to be polite and learn their rules.
So we can know which commits will be infringing others’ copyright.
If Claude is actually good enough to commit to rsync, of course I'm going to look at that and think "it's good enough for my side project too." And (benefit to companies aside) that is info it is useful to know, if it's true.
Yeah, this is why it's obnoxious and this is why scummy marketers do it. If you don't aggressively turn it off, they leech an implicit endorsement out of you.
- Sent from my iPhone
Alto hug the iphone sigoff is hilaripus sonce fhe meyboard is so bad it always comes across asa an ask doe forgivebeds
— Sent from my iPhone
Indeed. The best endorsement is done explicitly by obnoxious users.
I use Linux, btw.
[dead]
Is that a bad thing? I mean from the perspective of Anthropic's marketing department sure, but if agents are just another type of tool in developer's tool belt - as I see people recently like to claim - attribution feels kinda weird. In the end it is the developer who is responsible for their commits.
Yeah I think it's a bad thing. It's context about how open source code was written that is lost.
And I guess maybe there's no such thing as bad press but at least in this cases it doesn't seem like effective marketing for Anthropic.
“Don’t get mad at people for doing something unethical or immoral, or they’ll do something unethical or immoral!”
Disabling attribution of LLM-generated code is fraud, because you’re saying you wrote the code.
Of course that fits right in with the use of an LLM to generate code in the first place, since what it’s actually doing is regurgitating its inputs stripped of any license and copyright notice.
I'm very certain that this is not fraud, across multiple legal systems, both roman and common law. In both cases fraud requires a person is deprived of a material good. Neither the defrauded person or their material loss is present in this case. Maybe there is a oddball legal system somewhere in the world where fraud is something entirely different, but i doubt it. "Fraud", just like "Decorator Pattern" is a well established concept and pretty simple concept, even if there are edge cases. This does not fit at all.
In academia this is miss-attribution, outside of academia this does not exist.
This is clearly not not copyright infringement either as LLMs do not claim copyright, nor could they. Just like the photograph taken by the monkey, or pictures drawn by crows. LLM output is not a creative work either.
If this is unethical or immoral is a totaly different question. I really dont think so and I dont think you argue that position well.
It is misrepresentation for gain, that gain does not need to be monetary to be material. For example, it can be reputational.
It also is copyright infringement, because what the LLM “generates” are actually portions of its training set, which were covered by copyright. Just passing through an LLM does not remove that copyright from that work.
"Disabling attribution of LLM-generated code is fraud, because you’re saying you wrote the code."
Should there by attribution for Google or Stack Overflow copy/paste? Who should we bully about this?
Yes, in fact, this is why people who do that are looked down upon.
They are in fact committing fraud if they do not attribute the code in their commit properly, because by committing it they’re claiming to have rights by virtue of authorship that they do not have. (Namely, the right to contribute that code to the project,.) They may also be committing copyright infringement, depending on the copyright and license status of some code they found via Google or Stack Overflow.
It’s always fascinating to me to see how many people on Hacker News have such extremely poor understanding of how intellectual property actually works, and how misrepresenting themselves or their work can actually have consequences.
What cases can you cite that have determined it’s not?
It’s clear on its face that LLMs can and do store and reproduce copyrighted works; using a form of (somewhat) lossy data compression. And using a lossy stochastic or perceptual form of compression to reproduce a copyrighted work doesn’t somehow make it not storage or reproduction, otherwise sharing MP3 files wouldn’t be copyright infringement.
Anyone engaging in responsible risk management should assume that anything LLM-generated is infringing until determined otherwise by the courts, not the other way around.
> Should there by attribution for Google or Stack Overflow copy/paste?
Obviously, and I'm a bit taken aback that anyone thinks otherwise.
It's only fraud if a person signed their name stating such.
Their name being attached to the commit is itself, irrelevant, as their is no way to submit a patch otherwise. You could use a fake name, but you're just moving this fraud problem around.
You're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that using a tool constitutes fraud. Frankly, it's silly, if not genuinely stupid.
Film photographers in the early 2000s routinely called digital "not real photography" and Photoshop "cheating" because you could delete bad shots and fix everything later. Traditional musicians and critics dismissed drum machines, synthesizers, and autotune as soulless tools.
Intent and custom both matter quite a bit in law. It is customary to treat the name attached to a commit as the copyright holder of any changes represented by that commit, just as it was for the sender of an email containing a patch back when that was how such work was done.
Often this is also spelled out in a project’s contribution guidelines, and some projects have even had more explicit copyright assignment policies they required contributors to agree to, but the lack of such guidelines or assignment policies does not mean the custom as normally observed in the field is irrelevant.
[flagged]
This argument gets trotted out every time but it doesn't convince me of anything. Yes, calling things out creates an incentive for people to hide them, but so what?
Setting aside the whole AI = bad argument, let's do a metaphor. Tax evasion is bad and unethical and you should call it out where you see it. But wait, that creates an incentive for people to hide it! So I'd better not call it out, it's best to just keep my mouth shut.
I'd be willing to be that an undisclosed LLM disclosure will follow a developer around for the rest of their career
I'm willing to be that in two years that's going to be completely irrelevant because the amount of code written by hand will drop to less than 10%.
That kind of fraud absolutely should. (I suspect you mean “undisclosed LLM use.”)
Thank you, that's what I meant
I mean, I don't think commits are the place for tool attributions. I want to know what the change was, I'm not really interested in your tool selection (put that in the PR if it's relevant). It'd be just as irrelevant to see "written on my macbook in neovim"
Depends on what the claude attribution actually means. A lot of people will just get the thing building and then ship. To me that attribution is generally a red flag.
It means “this contribution likely infringes someone else’s copyright.”
I think it will be funny to watch people lose their collective minds when open source maintainers start requiring llm use.
This idea that the community can try to pressure an open source maintainers about the tools they use based off of kneejerk political reactions is so offensive.
Let's go the opposite way: "sorry I'm closing this pr because it didn't use an llm."
It makes no sense at all to do that. The only thing that matters is whether the code is good.
That’s not the only thing that matters. The provenance of the code also matters enormously, specifically whether the person contributing it actually has the right to do so.
If I contributed code to an Open Source project behind my old employer’s back, that would have been bad, because that code was owned by them and not me, even if I wrote it on my own time using my own equipment, because of the contract I signed with them.
If I copied code out of an AGPLv3-licensed codebase and contributed it to a BSD-licensed codebase without telling anyone, that would have been bad, because I did not have the right to change the license on that code to BSD (or change the license on the codebase to which I was contributing to AGPLv3).
If you use an LLM to produce code, you may well be doing the latter since an LLM is actually just regurgitating portions of its inputs. This is not a hypothetical scenario; I’ve personally encountered a case of someone using an LLM attempt to contribute code I recognized from a specific Open Source project under one license to another project under a different license, while claiming they “wrote it themselves.”
Any project that accepts contributions needs to take liability seriously and manage their risk appropriately.
I found exact matches. I also found inexact matches, where C functions had been turned into C++ member functions and the like. “Recognized” does not somehow imply a lack of precision.
The LLM the person used was trained on a very large corpus of Open Source code, and reproduced that code exactly. Just like LLMs have reproduced chapters of books and articles from the New York Times exactly.
Yes, exactly.
Unfortunately, a large number of people are being told—and here, you can see many who believe it—that the output of an LLM either carries no copyright or is copyright by the one prompting it. In other words, even right here on Hacker News it’s widely believed that LLMs “launder” copyright.
The Fortune 10 company that I spent decades at and retired from just a couple years ago noticed this issue immediately and issued a blanket ban on the use of these tools for the company’s own code that to my knowledge has not been rescinded. (They also started developing their own coding-specific LLM, training solely on code they owned, around the same time.)
You might consider that there is a very large incentive by the large and public players in this market to promote the idea that this is not true, that they consider themselves large and powerful enough to actually flout the law, and that they plan to use the argument that enforcement will be too damaging to the economy to make their view the “new normal.”
This playbook has been run before, by Uber and Lyft, by AirBnB, by Tesla with “FSD,” and so on. It’s very clearly the approach being taken.
Is this comment LLM generated?
Have fun with 1000x more Buns that literally no one is using or maintaining. An entire software industry built on top of a burning garbage pile of crappy, dead code.
This is my whole point. The whole thing is ludicrous.
And lo and behold, people are losing their collective minds, bridgading my posts, flagging me and demanding credentials.
"let's go the opposite way"
Do you have any popular open source projects? Or are you just an Internet gremlin?
I'm a successful distinguished engineer within mag 7, what are your qualifications? Please send me your resume and social security number to verify that you're qualified to speak on the matter.
While I'm grateful for all Andrew has done to create and maintain rsync, I rely heavily on it for backing up files between machines on my home network, so I've spent the time to figure out how to pin the Homebrew version of rsync to 3.4.1 because the bugs in the subsequent two versions really scare me (as does the original report that triggered all this).
Here is the process I used to do it, which was way more complex than I thought it would be:
https://gist.github.com/e40/caa67c1b8d439a528695f996d0519d8e
> It does not control for commit complexity, security intensity, or bug severity. It does not distinguish between a one-line typo fix and a CVE patch. It is a blunt instrument. But the critics' accusation is also blunt: "Claude is making things worse." A blunt instrument is the fairest response.
If by fairest you mean to say that this analysis and response is sufficient, then I'm sorry but I have to disagree. We really need to understand if the nature of the bugs are worse from a user's perspective. Even if the rate stayed unchanged, if the result is the perceived quality of the software declined then I would personally consider that worse, especially if I were a project maintainer.
That's not meant to be wholly dismissive either. But in general, I don't think quantitative analysis alone is enough to fully answer this type of question.
But it is fair. Up to this point I have yet to see anyone say they did an analysis of the code and found X regressions of Y severity. All they say is "there are more bugs because LLM". This analysis, which you can verify yourself if you wish, says "the bugs [number of] are pretty average even with LLM", which is a direct response to that. If you'd like a more nuanced analysis you're welcome to do one and share the result, if you're so inclined.
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. This is more evidence, and of greater rigor, than was used to make the assertions. That's good enough for me. If someone wants to actually do the work to support the original claims with better evidence, great. I'd love to see it. Until then, I'm going to not worry about this issue.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim?
This post just gives me more questions than answers and I'm unable to form a decision:
* Why was v3.4.1 the most buggy, right before the Claude commits? Why did "nobody notice"? It's way to strange to just say welp, it must be human error. * Why does v3.4.2 have 0 bugs, or 0 bug score. And why was such an outlier (no other commit seemingly has this??) allowed to mix into aggregate statistics and bring all the "is Claude buggy?" scores down. Tbh idk how that _wasn't_ a red flag in the author's analysis...
This article feels like half of an analysis presented as a highly complex finished product due all the advanced stats they're running.
> Why was v3.4.1 the most buggy, right before the Claude commits? Why did "nobody notice"? It's way to strange to just say welp, it must be human error.
Why wouldn't it be except question begging priors assuming it couldn't be?
> Why does v3.4.2 have 0 bugs, or 0 bug score. And why was such an outlier (no other commit seemingly has this??) allowed to mix into aggregate statistics and bring all the "is Claude buggy?" scores down.
My original metrics which didn't filter out feature requests and questions had it at four bugs and prior to that it was even higher and it didn't make much of a difference to the overall analysis (fell well within the IQR, the lower end of it too). Also, removing one outlier just because it looks kind of funny to you, especially when we only have two Claude releases at all, would be worse in my opinion and more arbitrary.
> Why wouldn't it be except question begging priors assuming it couldn't be?
A multitude of reasons? A change in maintainer. A change in the mental state of a maintainer. A sudden focus by the community on a given undesirable behavior. Someone else here suggested use of Claude AI before it was disclosured. The framing implies that it was human-produced coding error, but my point is it could be _any other human error_ or even just some odd benign human behavior (a stampede of bug submitters), affecting the data. Which does not lead to the conclusion that AI code > human code. Not looking at these potentials is so unsatisfying.
> My original metrics which didn't filter out feature requests...
It still feels like a lot of weight of the phrase "If that doesn't look like a red flag to you, you'd be right." hinges on the fact that one of the versions has 0 bugs and it really killed the weight of that statement for me, because the oddity of there being 0 bugs just wasn't explained.
---
Could you please post the duckdb file that has the raw bug -> severity + version mapping to the GitHub repo? I have a desire to dig into this myself
I've been coding for over 2 decades. I love it, I've always loved it and I likely always will.
I was an AI skeptic some months ago but truly Claude and Codex have changed my development style and velocity in a way I never imagined would ever be possible. With that, yes, I produce more code and am finding more bugs.
So looking over at comments in HN articles the amount of polarising hate to anything produced with AI is quite surprising. Just because some AI helped or even produced entirely doesn't suddenly make a project 'vibe coded' as if that's meant to be some insult levelled at users of LLMs.
It reminds me a lot of when offshore outsources started getting more software development work from the mid-90s with all the derogatory remarks made towards 'Indian developers'. Now we're in the mid 2020s and similar remarks are made towards AI.
I don't get it. I really don't. What I do know for sure is more and more code will be AI generated with or without the detractors.
I was similarly an AI skeptic 3 years ago. When GPT-4 was the state of the art, I thought we're going to plateau soon because of context size limits (remember back when you had to pay insane money just to get 32K)?
Last year was the first time I saw an AI agent actually debug and fix a non-trivial bug in a satisfactory way. Even then, trying to use it on larger tasks made it clear that it wasn't something I could just hand over the issue tracker to.
Now? I've been using Codex for the past several months to work on a nontrivial project. Which was prototyped in C++ (for library reasons mostly), then had the initial version written in Haskell, and more recently I got it ported to Rust to keep memory use in check on mobile.
These things are not trouble-free, but the sheer amount of progress made in just the last year alone is astounding. Skepticism is well and good, but healthy skepticism ought to yield to tangible evidence.
I've always noticed, within any subject involving tools, there are people who like the tools, and some people who like to use the tools to do something else.
With programming, I've always been in the later: it's a tool that allows me to do what I actually love, which is problem solving, system level thinking, and providing some nice solution to that problem, that happens to be through software.
So, I have an absolute blast with AI, because it helps do the more boring bits. And, seeing my non-programming colleagues get excited to see their vibe coded ideas become reality has been so much fun.
I'm genuinely curious to hear the perspective of someone anti-AI, who works in software. Perhaps the impending doom/skill shift of our profession?
I'm not anti-AI but something I've been thinking about is the discipline it requires. As you said, it's a tool that allows you to rename a variable name on one end and do complete vibe coding on the other end. Developers may say that we should stay somewhere left on that spectrum, because that's where human's are more involved.
But developers also say good practices should be followed when talking to each other, and while some may do, reality is often very different.
It requires discipline, which varies a lot between developers, between projects, current mood, and so on.
In the beginning you might be careful doing small changes, but after a while you might get more tempted to accept the output for what it is, because ultimately that's much easier.
So the way I see it; the left side is harder work and potentially bigger but delayed dopamine hits, the right side is quick dopamine hits. How do we (at least those who struggle with discipline) resist just slipping to the right?
I started out carefully myself and slipped more into vibe coding, but I don't feel particularly proud of it for some reason.
> It requires discipline, which varies a lot between developers, between projects, current mood, and so on.
In the beginning you might be careful doing small changes, but after a while you might get more tempted to accept the output for what it is, because ultimately that's much easier.
Counterpoint: how is this any different from how things were pre-LLMs? I have seen, in the same codebase, some throughly well-written and tested PRs that read like Shakespeare and some of the laziest slop that even no LLM would ever write because humans have an unlimited capacity for laziness.
You catch the bad stuff through oversight, process, automated and manual checks, and the ultimate threat that your job depends on your ability to deliver so you better allocate at least enough energy into this so that you can ship moderately working code.
I am anti-vibe coding if that meets your criteria?
Reviewing vibe-coded PRs and features has been utterly exhausting over the past few months.
I work on critical, mature software - a small change in behaviour can mean data loss or non-compliance with regulations for our customers. The biggest problem with AI PRs is the sheer amount of churn, extra code and lack of intent with the PRs it generates.
The only way I can describe the latter is that an AI-only PR feels to me like a painting where everything is high detail - and you have to comb over each part before you understand why it's there because so much is superfluous. A well written human PR on the other hand, is painted such that your eye naturally follows the thought process of the author so you can just nod along during the review, as if the solution was obvious.
Also when I'm _using_ the agent; at least 50 percent of my time is spent telling it to stop with it's approach so it doesn't go down a useless rabbit hole and waste tokens.
> The biggest problem with AI PRs is the sheer amount of churn, extra code and lack of intent with the PRs it generates.
But this isn't an LLM problem; this is a problem of undisciplined engineers who feel they need to cram extra stuff in a PR. If an engineer doesn't look at the output of the LLM and generate extra work then it's still on them, right?
> The only way I can describe the latter is that an AI-only PR feels to me like a painting where everything is high detail - and you have to comb over each part before you understand why it's there because so much is superfluous
This just indicates that the engineer doesn't know how to use the tool. Hell they can ask the LLM to split the work into focused PRs and Claude will be happy to do it and the results might no even be half bad.
> Also when I'm _using_ the agent; at least 50 percent of my time is spent telling it to stop with it's approach so it doesn't go down a useless rabbit hole and waste tokens.
If this is happening often then the tool is probably not fit for the job.
I started similarly with it. I'm of the opinion that its a tool that behaves like a tool - how well it works depends on who is using it and how.
I don't have a good analogy but the immediate one that comes to mind is treating AI like a junior developer that you're mentoring. If you know what you're doing you can iterate quickly; if you don't then its a whole other story.
Claude built me a Markdown editor - I designed it, set coding standards, etc. It coded it to my spec. The output is in my opinion not bad and is very usable (for me - I use it daily now). Probably would have cost me north of $50k to get a team of seasoned devs to build it to the current level of polish. https://github.com/emrul/md
I just really hate talking to the computer in human language.
Personally, it would still bother me if some lazy bro hit a code-generator and people end up dead.
For context search, I find LLM quite useful... still wrong 20% of the time... but it has some utility.
Here is a thought experiment: If "AI" will eventually generate your work, than what actual value do you bring to the table? =3
> It reminds me a lot of when offshore outsources started getting more software development work from the mid-90s with all the derogatory remarks made towards 'Indian developers'.
What was the impetus of the derogatory remarks?
I work with outsourced code all the time and it is a tyre fire without exception. I just spent a week scrubbing a codebase where some dev “did the needful” and committed an on-by-default flag to bypass authentication checks because he didn’t known how to set up his local work environment.
People report the same “took a shortcut” issue with AI vibe coding, and I can confirm that I’ve had to rewrite practically everything the AI generated for me, despite using a frontier model dialed up to 11 thinking levels.
Having said that, AI is very useful for other activities like PR review, security vulnerability analysis, typo hunting, reverse engineering, etc.
I’m probably going to have to increase my subscription to the next tier but at the same time I still can’t use any of the code it generates.
If even one person can simultaneously experience "very useful, need to pay more for it" and "useless output code quality" then of course you'd expect a variety of opinions amongst the general user base.
> I work with outsourced code all the time and it is a tyre fire without exception. I just spent a week scrubbing a codebase where some dev “did the needful” and committed an on-by-default flag to bypass authentication checks because he didn’t known how to set up his local work environment.
OP knows this but finds himself in the strange position of having to defend India slop in order to defend AI slop, totally unnecessarily and unprompted. It's baffling to you and me.
LLM are good for context search, and template output.
However, you also get the lowest common salient answer guaranteed, uncopyrightable work (differs from public domain), and potential legal peril from copyright bleed-through.
We are in the golden Napster age of isomorphic plagiarism. =3
Claude in general probably increases observed bugs in rsync, because it can churn out vulnerability reports that necessitate tons of changes to software that people are accustomed to working flawlessly in non-pathological use cases.
I don't have empirical evidence for this claim, but best I can tell, security patches are the principal source of observed bugs in software of a certain vintage, because they cause churn. (Just think of Windows updates that break drivers.)
This is a really cool post but I think one metric we may want to also look at is does using agentic coding tools in one domain impact your coding abilities in another domain? A lot of people I know have been talking about getting rusty on the fundamentals recently. This is not something I am particularly feeling as I do a mix of running agents in parallel and writing some code manually where it makes sense. But if people who have been prompt-only at work come home and work on rsync and are more "rusty" maybe that could also lead to more bugs?
This would be even harder to measure.
> The analysis uses a single metric: bugs per 10 commits (bugs/10c).
Bugs per commit as a metric papers over severity, both in terms of security severity as well as the effect on the user. A mislabeled button has the same weight as the entire app crashing in this framework.
IMO "bugs per commit" is even worse than that, because, in addition to what you say, it also hides the extraordinary spike of commit activity of a project that had previously been stable. [0]
It is the exact metric you'd choose if you wanted to make the current situation of rsync look like not a big deal.
[0] https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/graphs/commit-activity
Yes, but we know why there was an "extraordinary spike," and it has nothing to do with rsync being "vibe coded." The maintained has directly addressed this.
> The maintained has directly addressed this.
Not sure if this is mentioned somewhere else, but looks like the maintainer has a blog post that addresses this: https://medium.com/@tridge60/rsync-and-outrage-d9849599e5a0
Seems like this would be a good place to link to that.
I am not finding these links in TFA, I see a link to an issue #929 which (as mentioned in TFA) has over 350 replies, and and opinionated summary of what transpired, including some detailed description of specific posts there. However I did not find the maintainers response.
Of interest is this post here: https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/issues/929#issuecommen... which echos the same concern which was raised up thread, however, I failed to find the maintainers’ response.
EDIT: Found it! it is in the (untitled) discussion section (after the results).
https://lobste.rs/s/k1b0za/rsync_outrage#c_2iowov
EDIT 2 (and advice on design): The page design changes backgrounds after the results sections, which kind of conveys to the user that they have reached the end of what was is important and can just skim over the rest (usually pages have a radical change in typography like these when you’ve reached the comment section), however this is what is analogous to a discussion in a typical paper, and is arguably the most important part. I had simply assumed that you just left it at the result and skipped the discussion as a stylistic choice.
I've now resolved this. The new version, which should be live on GH Pages soon, uses — what I think is — a pretty good methodology for assigning severity to each bug, normalizes it to 0.0-1.0, sums that, and treats that as the total severity weighted bugs, then does the analysis based on that. It did not change the analysis in any material way.
There was no analysis of severity in all of the rage posting that occurred. The single point being pushed was "use of an LLM led/leads to more bugs". The author specifically states that's what they're addressing (blunt accusation -> blunt response).
The specific problems mentioned were all reasonably severe. The original post itself described a show-stopping bug:
So my systems recently updated to rsync 3.4.3, and as soon as that happened my backup system - which does incremental backups using multiple --compare-dest= arguments - started to fail on anything but a full backup.
The second reply is similar:
i wondered why my 3d printers were running like sh*t and at 100% cpu; turns out log2ram uses rsync.
Later in the comments, someone attempted to provide a list of issues that had been added: https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/issues/929#issuecommen.... The list included several failures to build or run rsync that appear to have resulted from broken backward compatibility. That seems reasonably severe. If intentional, I would have expected mention in the release notes about the removal of backwards compatibility, but none was made.
The issue comments already degraded into a lot of unnecessary vitriol even before the above mentioned comment and only gets worse from there, so I stopped. But, the fact remains that the whole issue started with a severe bug.
I applaud the attempt at dispassionately analyzing whether the recent LLM releases of rsync were normal or outliers as far as bugs are concerned, but I don't think you can do so properly without analyzing severity.
To keep such an analysis fair and contextually relevant, it would have to be extended to the previous 928 issues as well (of course filtering for bug reports). I don't see anyone doing such an analysis, I think because they don't expect they'd find it useful (at least not as the rage fuel that many are seeking); what they'd be more likely to find is that there is a similar severity-mix going all the way back to v1.0.0, because these things inevitably happen whether coding is done by human or machine.
"A lot of claims in the wider discussion have treated every recent bug report as if it had the same cause. That is not accurate. Some reports were regressions from recent security hardening, some were missing historical test coverage, some were older bugs found because rsync suddenly had more eyes on it (especially by AI that can find issues quickly) and some were packaging or environment-specific failures. A Co-authored-by line is not enough by itself to establish root cause." - https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/issues/929#issuecommen...
Why don't you prove the bugs increased then?
Why is it that some unfounded claim is made and the onus is suddenly on the project maintainer to prove it beyond all doubt?
It should be on the person making the claim to prove it
[flagged]
It's always the most insufferable people that make the biggest hullabaloo about a project they have nothing to do with and have never contributed to. People with literally zero skin in the game using the AI boogeyman to push some agenda or some anti-agenda. OSS has become so incredibly toxic in the past decade, and consumers of OSS have become extremely entitled.
I run a smallish project with ~1k stars and I've stopped maintaining it last year because people feel like they're absolutely owed features or bug-fixes or whatever. It's tiring and a complete shame that author has to make such an insane deep dive into a random accusation that just caught on social media. I want to emphasize that this has nothing to do with AI, it's just tech tourists, consumers (as opposed to creators), and engagement farmers that have taken over. AI slop probably doesn't help, but the underlying issue has been brewing for at least a decade.
Also, the "making soup for the homeless & pissing in it" is not only an off-base analogy (software is pretty low on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs), but also somehow looks down on both people in need and the volunteers that help them. Just absolutely gross.
Absolutely agree. Quite a lot of judgement from people who benefited from this guy's software for over 20 years, probably without ever helping him pay his bills even once.
> It's always the most insufferable people that make the biggest hullabaloo about a project they have nothing to do with and have never contributed to.
Agreed, and similarly, as a hobbyist programmer who loves Rust and Go, I've always felt that the people who command others to "rewrite it in xyz" are not themselves developers, they're "ideas people." There's a mass of these people whose main interactions with the world are through the dramatic forcing of their correct opinions.
> I run a smallish project with ~1k stars and I've stopped maintaining it last year because people feel like they're absolutely owed features or bug-fixes or whatever.
That's a bummer and it's something I'm fearful of. I post some code on my website, not on a github type site, and don't interact with people about it. It's nice and plenty of people do it. Is that something you'd consider?
haha, that analogy says more about whoever wrote it than it ever could to get the intended point across!
Wait, how is any of this relevant if there were only 2 Claude commits? My statistics courses are far behind me, but don't you need at least 30 data points to conclude anything?
Depends on the methods you use. If you're trying to fit curves and so on, yes. The methods I use were designed for very low amounts of data, and are generally okay for that, specifically and especially when you're just trying to show a lack of evidence for some non-null hypothesis.
And again, that's kind of the point. There's exactly zero actual evidence, however you slice it, that "Claude broke rsync" except cherry-picked anecdata, and the whole point of my analysis is to demonstrate the total lack of any such trend/evidence at all, and just how in-distribution/normal these releases are, to show that if people hadn't known Claude was involved in them, they wouldn't have remarked on them.
> My statistics courses are far behind me, but don't you need at least 30 data points to conclude anything?
There is no fixed number. Sample size depends on the size of the set you're sampling, desired margin of error and confidence interval.
If your total set has a million items, you need ~16600 samples to draw conclusions with 99% ±1% certainty.
It's not uncommon to have small amounts of data come out of experiments. These are appropriate tests for the size of the data. These tests failed to disprove the null hypothesis.
Okay, I really have to point out to everyone: the numbers and report cards are TEMPLATED IN BY A SCRIPT. Hallucinations are a moot point. https://github.com/alexispurslane/rsync-analysis/blob/main/s...
> "Claude clearly made things worse" &emdash; the main claim
Even this report is full of claude-introduced bugs
For those that don’t know the html entity is — not &emdash; although I think in modern codebases people usually just type — directly.
This mistake does exist in the wild though: https://github.com/search?q=%26emdash%3B&type=code
If I was more ambitious I would plot the dates of the blames of these results in a histogram and see if an there is a significant increase in these mistakes (over a baseline —) correlating with the release of some models.
Reposting my previous comment because the post I commented on earlier was flagged to death:
This is kind of a sad situation. Tridge is an excellect programmer and a very respected member of the community, and I totally get it. rsync, like most old C projects, has a lot of accumulated cruft, and things that would be nice to fix, and bugs. And those bugs come in at least three classes: semantic bugs, improper interactions with the OS, and memory safety bugs. And the author and long-time maintainer has the same problem as every other maintainer and team: not enough time to deal with everything. And now LLMs come along, and they are so, so seductive. They will fix your bugs if you ask them to. They will even find your bugs. And they're right a remarkably large fraction of the time. It's magic! You can write an agent loop or magic harness or swarm and let them do this on their own if you want. And so you start getting through your backlog, and it's fun, and you feel good, and you let your guard down. And you start having problems: - Your favorite LLM does not have the context that lives in your head. I use rsync because Tridge wrote a fine piece of software, and he knows how to write serious software, and I'm willing to accept that it's in C and therefore almost certainly has a safety bug or three. If I wanted to use claude-ersatz-rsync, I'd use that instead, but I really don't, TYVM. - Remember how LLMs are right a remarkable fraction of the time? The fraction is remarkable, but it's nowhere close to 100%. (Yet? Who knows. Right now, it's DEFINITELY nowhere near 100%.) - The training process for the current crop of LLMs does not adequately reinforce long-term maintainability of the outputs. And, for all the LLMs seem magic, they seem to love a workload in which they write code with poorly named functions and no docs and sort of assume that they can parse their own code down the road and figure out WTF is going on, and they are AT BEST only a tiny bit right. Because every project has interfaces where one module touches another, and every LLM has very limited context (larger than humans' in straight up verbatim working memory but MUCH MUCH WORSE than humans' (for now, anyway) in actual broad picture retention), and this workload doesn't work. If it did, we could give up on structured programming and just have the LLMs vomit up uncommented asm. And so, where humans have conventions and decently named functions and ideas that you shouldn't churn your code just for funsies (at least not in a production context), LLMs do this: https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/commit/30656c5e358b1c6... Most of that is blindly changing calls do functions like do_foo(args) (which makes sense) to do_foo_at(the same args), which makes no sense. Sorry, but the world of POSIXish-targetting programers (including, presumably, Claude) knows what _at means, and it means "at" the specified directory fd. Which is not specified in the call sites. It makes no sense at all. Buried in all that mess [0] is the implementations, which are sloppy. Seriously: - There's a function called do_utimensat_at. Is Claude stuttering? - There's a lovely comment in syscall.c:1660-1673 that's quite bad. It's handling strings that contain "/../" and such. If there's some actual contract that the function makes to its callers (and there surely is -- this is critical security-sensitive code), then SAY WHAT THE CONTRACT IS. Don't bury a partial explanation in a comment in the middle. - There's a repeated pattern: In do_foobar_at(path), there is, in effect: if (!path) do_foobar(path); Nice NULL pointer handling. Is NULL a valid argument or not? Why handle it by forwarding it to the less secure variant? - Those nice, supposedly secure "at" variants check for paths that start with '/' and forward to the raw insecure syscall. And they don't check for .. in the middle. So what, exactly, is the special code for .. promising to do? (See above.) I don't think more details are needed. But my take is that this whole thing is a mistake. I personally work on the sort of code where messes like this are entirely unacceptable. And using an LLM while maintaining the kind of oversight that prevents it is mentally taxing and not exactly fun. If you want to fix all the gunk in a C program like rsync by LLM magic, go rewrite it in Rust or something -- you're already exposing yourself to a massive rewrite and all the risks that entails, and you're pretty much guaranteeing a high level of sloppiness, so at least use a language that is more resistant to slop.
[0] Which GitHub doesn't even render by default because their diff viewer is so bad.
[There were follow-ups. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48352182]
> But the critics' accusation is also blunt: "Claude is making things worse." A blunt instrument is the fairest response.
So the criticism was bad, and that somehow makes it ok to use a bad metric?
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if the criticism is referring to a broad set of metrics like bugs per release and number of commits that were made by Claude, then it's correct to look at precisely those things because that's what the claim is about.
AI + Interest != Expertise
I come to hn because I get very nuanced, informed information and glorious puns.
What would be a better one?
Flagged. Article is as AI heavy as the commits that people are complaining about.
I think this writer kinda took the bait which is fine someone had to do this so we couldn't debate endlessly.
But the reality is that if you were already set enough to call rsync slop because of a single post, you aren't going to be more down now. Even in these responses I see everyone nitpicking and moving goalposts as if one more commit being actually claude-aided will tip the scales from stable project to "vibe coded slop".
Software has always been fuzzy, we have never come up with an objective way to handle software quality, and this Uber hatred of llm contributions lets the humans who make egregious bugs and mistakes off the hook.
Taking a step back, we need to have more empathy and thoughtfulness of one another in this space. Its new and people are experimenting and there will be nothing good coming from personal insults and DDOsing a good project just because someone got ragebaited on threads, x, mastodon or whatever else.
How do we determine bugs and increase quality? Its almost like we have been grappling with this question for decades and I still hear people fight on the best way forward. Simple design, test driven development, user surveys, all of the above have been used as a proxy for software and they all failed to capture everything. Back in the day we used that ambiguity to give each other grace, now we use that ambiguity to tear down other creators. Whatever, if open source software really is dying its because of this toxic shit just as much as the llms
'this toxic shit' would not be occurring if we didn't invent a machine that can be used either as a firehose or a scalpel. I do acknowledge that behaving hurtfully towards somebody giving something away for free is unwarranted behaviour. perhaps a universally agreed quality control method does not exist - this does not suggest that ai slop is anything but low quality code. ai can indeed be used well, however you yourself mentioned letting humans off the hook for making egregious mistakes. pushing out ai slop IS an egregious mistake. when a release contains more commits than the previous N releases, slop likelihood increases, therefore further evidence is required to prove non sloppiness.
This is a neat post and I'm glad it got written and this is a little bit off-topic but:
Hey, 'logicprog, your writing is fine!
Use LLMs to critique your writing, check its structure, vet your choice of topic sentences, check flow from graf to graf and section to section, look for passive voice and overused words. LLMs are fantastic for that. But don't use a single word an LLM suggests in your actual writing. If it suggests something really fucking good, too bad, those words are disqualified. It's an easy red line to adhere to, easier than it sounds, and it'll keep your writing human.
(You ended up somewhere around here anyways, but that was after you posted something with LLM-written language because you weren't confident enough in your own writing. The things you do "worse" than an LLM are what make you you; be protective of them!)
Thank you!
Thank you for (re)writing this in your own voice. Despite how much effort might be put into methodology, data collection, etc.. reading slop is unbearable, full stop. It's not intentional, but I have almost a nauseated reaction when the "AI tone" comes though, regardless of how good the data or how accurate the writing is.
Your verbosity and sentence structure are not a problem. I hope that publishing this gives you a bit more confidence in your writing, because it's legitimately good.
Trust is slowly gained and easily lost. The amount of apologia I hear from top-tier developers signals an inflection point downward.
If the author is this concerned about security, I’m curious why rsync doesn’t just build with fil-c by default and skip the noise. Those who need the extra perf to do more than 1 gigabit/s can build it in “unsafe” mode.
Because Fil-C is not a serious project
If you make claims like that, you need to expand on them or at least provide some references.
It’s Fil’s side project that he uses to spend his extra creative energy and troll people on Twitter
Not going to critique this survey. Must have taken a lot of time and required a lot of patience. Great work!
I think it will be up to some group in academia to make a real full blown study across several repositories.
There must be tons to learn on how LLMs have changed software development and perhaps the cleanest separation will simply be going by what repositories declare e.g. "No LLM involved" vs those that proudly do the opposite or are neutral.
Bugs is not the only variable of interest here. I am guessing someone is already doing this as we discuss it here...
I'm just curious about testing.
Is this a configuration that's not common and thus not tested?
If people think they can do better, I want to see their forks and them keeping up with it.
https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/graphs/contributors?fr...
How does the analysis look if we only count the >=90 severity cases—that is, if we downgrade the severity of all <90 cases to 0?
Feel free to run it and find out. I don't think it would produce very much useful information though
Unrelated, but this post has a level of rigor you rarely see nowadays. I think it deserves to be commended for that.
HN relatively, is a very intellectual part of the internet, yet even still, it's really common to see very uneducated opinions here. Not that everyone needs to be very educated, but posts with plainly wrong assumptions and biases shouldn't go completely unchecked so rampantly.
so the answer is: no. actaully less bugs. thanks
"fewer"
First rsync and now less? What comes next, cat?
The peak of cascading effects from errant dependencies has yet to come
Do people enjoy interrogative headlines? Find out at 11.
I'm amazed that this is still being discussed.
It's open source, no one is forcing you to use it.
If you don't trust the newer versions; use the old versions.
If you no longer like the maintainer because of reasons, fork it/start your own.
It's not that hard.
Storm in a teacup.
The discussions around this have devolved to excrement anyway, I feel tempted to invoke the meme where the goose asking a guy what his jacket is made of, asks “where is your reproducer case!?” instead.
Instead we have a shitstorm over presumably legit issue, for which the only source is some mastodon post.
One command that used to work in 3.4.1 and stopped working in 3.4.3. Just one! We could have already bisected the living shit out of this and go home, but no.
Pretty cool site!
> v3.4.3 has been out long enough that its rate (5.00) is already comparable to historical releases. The "wait and see" argument is an appeal to an unknowable future that shifts the burden of proof away from the critics. If more bugs surface, they will enter the distribution like every other release. There is no reason to expect a regime break.
I mean, as someone who uses LLMs, it might be a good idea to consider how one might limit the amount of bugs that will appear in the future at least a little bit: parallel iterative code review loops would probably be the easiest and most applicable to LLMs, though I guess test coverage and other code analysis tools help too.
Another update: did an automated severity analysis on each bug report (~2000 of them!) using an LLM at temp=0 with a very strict rubric (and I checked to make sure that it rated things in a consistent, stable way using it). The rubric, LLM used, and some example ratings are included in the methodology section. For now, the information was just stored per-bug in the DuckDB and used to filter out non-bug bugs, to get a clearer signal. I'm going to try to use it to see if the post-Claude bugs were more severe in any way next.
The TLDR seems to be: needs more data.
Write with your own voice and then polish with ai.
Or just do not polish? Write with your own voice accept it as it is, humans communicating to humans
Please don't, even "polish" can make it sound completely AI written.
The fact last few commits were attributed to claude doesn't mean previous ones didn't use it.
Also if you write a paper where you get statistical conclusions out of whole 2 datapoints you'd be laughed out of the room
> Also if you write a paper where you get statistical conclusions out of whole 2 datapoints you'd be laughed out of the room
I'm using methods appropriate to that low amount of data, first of all. Second of all, since I'm only trying to show there's no evidence for the anti-AI hypothesis (not disprove it, or prove the null hypothesis), that's sufficient in itself. Also, I wonder why nobody said things like you're saying ("there's too little data to tell") in response to all the absolutist claims that AI caused rsync to get worse?
> The fact last few commits were attributed to claude doesn't mean previous ones didn't use it.
At this point, you're just positing Russel's Teapot: you'll keep assuming more and more of the code was "secretly" Claude when there's no evidence for it and no reason to think so, just because you've started with the assumption that Claude makes things worse and you want to find a way to prove it.
Why not? Claude marks its commit messages. That there were none, and then there were, seems a signal.
Especially since if the earlier commits were so clearly AI authored yet without the Claude marker, surely you or anyone would be able to spot them. You could say, X commit does not have the Claude commit marker yet was AI written. But for all the speculation on this thread, I haven’t seen anyone actually doing that. What may be possible is that the rsync maintainers used AI to assist yet reviewed and edited themselves, as many devs do, and if so then the stats in this article are still notable: there are no poor quality outliers that can reliably be attributed to AI and if one specific release (3.4.0) was, the subsequent releases which presumably also had as much AI as this speculative hidden AI release only show improvement and thus act as a pro-AI argument.
The blog has many more datapoints than two. It compares many releases. You’re looking at 2-vs, not 2.
What strikes me about the post is that it goes to great lengths to talk about proper statistical methods, but then is written in the most clearly biased language ("what stupid AI haters get wrong etc). If you want people to take your study seriously, why wreck it by coming across with such a strong prior bias? I stopped reading...
To be fair, the tone of the article is practically chill compared to the comments it is written in response to.
If they're the statistical methods and metrics hold up, or they don't. Also, if you don't want to read my opinion on things, then just grab the GitHub repo and run the end-to-end replication and look at the output data yourself.
This is just narrow thinking. Say Claude did increase the bugs in rsync by a negligible factor.
So what? You've saved a significant amount of time for a decent number of humans, and if those humans are working on other projects, the overall net output for the world is net positive compared to without LLMs.
You have to broaden your perspective. It's not just about how rsync was affected.
Let me translate this comment:
> ok, so I was wrong and badly, but I will double down and say I was right anyway
LLMs don't create bugs, people do
[flagged]
needs a tldr; im not reading all that. maybe claude can summarize it for me.
And anti-AI people accuse people who use AI of being intellectually lazy. First of all, it's long because it's expanded to respond to all the criticisms. It seems that either something can be short, and dismissed as incomplete, or it can be complete, and dismissed as being long. Nice Kafka trap. Additionally, there's literally an Executive Summary section right there, for your TLDR.
Asked your Clanker what a joke is.
> If anyone complains about my verbosity or sentence structure — as they usually do, which is the reason I originally let the AI write the prose, among other reasons obsoleted by templating — they can go fuck themselves.
You can write for an audience or you can write for yourself. Which is fine either way but you shouldn't pass the blame for bad results on to your audience.
> and recieving almost no substantive input, discussion, or response on the actual content of the article
Well did you write it for that purpose?
> "Just wait, more bugs will surface" -- v3.4.3 has been out long enough
Wait for _more releases_. As your own data shows the bug rate is not consistent between releases. So this is probably not a worthwhile metric. Perhaps systems touched, new features included, or attempted fixes would be a better way to contextualize releases and the goals of the author.
What followed was extraordinary: 329 comments and counting, ranging from thoughtful concern to outright harassment.
The thread did not stop at words. One user posted My Little Pony drawings of themselves strangling the "project janitor that pushed vibecoded commits":
It spread to Hacker News and Lobsters, generating hundreds more comments.
Please correct your article.
It is neat that Lobsters has this feature (and HN should too), and I'm glad you took a beat to explain it. I think you didn't need the last sentence, though.
I have done so! that was a misremembering on my part. first mention of Lobsters is now here:
> On Lobste.rs, in response to the Medium essay Tridge himself posted in response, finally some users like boramalper begin to actually ask for evidence one way or another:
[flagged]
[flagged]
Is this an analysis made by/with Claude?
It very obviously is. "The Outlier Nobody Noticed" -_-"
FWIW, I asked ChatGPT to review the article just for my amusement. It's conclusion was:
"My honest assessment is that this is a competent calculation performed on a badly confounded measurement, followed by conclusions substantially stronger than the calculation warrants. It is useful as a rebuttal to “the Claude releases are obviously unprecedented disasters,” but not as evidence that Claude was harmless."
[stub for offtopicness]
[see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48416020 for how all this happened in the first place]
Some notes on this:
- I used GLM 5.1 to help with the coding and math for this.
- However, I explicitly dictated where the data should be pulled from (GitHub, Bugzilla, mailing list), how it should be tagged and grouped, and what data to look at (e.g. bugs instead of regressions)
- Additionally, I consulted with my wife, who has a master's degree in statistics from Penn State University for what sort of statistical methodology would be justified for this very limited data set, while still giving as much information as possible.
- I know the website looks like we stereotypically consider vibe-coded websites to look, but I actually explicitly asked for that. The original HTML design looked like a website from 1995, and I just prefer how this looks. It's pretty!
I really struggle to believe you wrote text like:
> A simple distributional analysis of every rsync release with bug data. No model. No assumptions. Just placement.
No, I didn't write the text itself. I'm typically significantly more verbose and elliptical, and more than that, the numbers and methodology changed often enough over the course of the last couple days I was working on this because I was trying to get it to be as accurate and fair as possible that trying to keep the whole thing up to date manually would have been problematic.
That's interesting; IME, most people get equally angry and are as likely to disengage with a superior tone over my autism-infodump verbose essay prose as with LLM output.
I read it perfectly fine. I see content, not style.
[flagged]
In general, it seems HN does not like to read llm-generated articles. I ran into this myself when using an llm to edit some stuff I wrote.
At the time, I found this a bit irritating, but with a few weeks time I see the merit. The informational content tends to fall into “derivative” territory when LLM’s write stuff. And people are here for novelty and some socialization.
Also LLM prose seems optimized for engagement rather than concise communication. Takes longer to sift through linguistic boilerplate to get to the point. (The quoted bit being a case in point)
Why would anyone spend time reading something that someone couldn't even spend the time to write themselves?
I think it’s just people don’t read before voting, they upvote on the headline and then come to discuss it here.
I don't even know what "just placement" is.
(I need a better model to translate from llmese.)
Sometimes the things word generators say just don’t make sense.
[flagged]
I'd suggest writing the lead-in yourself and boxing AI prose separately from your prose in the analysis for future articles. You can give the humanized summary/eli5/key points, then have "details according to AI" boxes that go into nitty-gritty. People seem to dislike AI ghostwriting, but most of these people still use AI, so perhaps keeping authorship clear and separate will avoid some of the flak.
This seems fair. Of course, now that I've posted this here once, I doubt it'll get constructive engagement again, but I can at least improve this for the future
Even if everything in the article is true you should not use AI to write this. A analogy would be tobacco company report on how smoking isn’t so bad for you.
This submission was heavily flagged, presumably because the article sounded like genai. But the article now says the following:
> After posting this on Hacker News and recieving almost no substantive input, discussion, or response on the actual content of the article, I decided to rewrite all of the prose in my own voice.
I've therefore turned off the flags and hopefully people can actually now discuss the claims/findings being reported.
> I decided to rewrite all of the prose in my own voice.
Soo... it didn't just sound like genai but was genai?
___
Huh. From the article:
> If anyone complains about my verbosity or sentence structure — as they usually do, which is the reason I originally let the AI write the prose, among other reasons obsoleted by templating — they can go fuck themselves.
This is kinda sad, honestly. But also should show the author that doing what people try to bully you into doing will not stop them from bullying you.
Just stick with your unique voice man. If people don't want to read that that's fine. They do not have to. You're fine
.. what are those em-dashes doing there though?
The em dashes are fine.
If someone gives them shit about their writing, that's on the critic for being shitty. If they use AI to write, that's on them for being fake. But, to write online at all requires being ready to have people be shitty to you and ideally not reacting in a way that makes the situation worse. Sounds like they need work on that part.
Anyway it is basically always possible for someone to find something legitimately bad about anything a person does. The question is, how much of an issue is that? Not much actually. So you have flaws. Fine, just be flawed. It had no affect on your life beyond your reaction to the attack. And putting aside that reaction is a prerequisite for learning anything useful (or discerning that there is nothing to learn) from the experience.
Good people will trust good intentions through the flaws, while shitty people will write off your work and your intentions because of the flaws (and try to make sure you feel bad about it in the process). But it's always they're too weak to express disagreement maturely, or sometimes because they're bitter and threatened by your good intentions directly. Either way, it's their flaw, not yours.
Great, so I rewrite everything in my own prose, and now it's still "obvious AI writing," just because I'm literate.
What? You are confused--human beings write em dashes also. Also you're being a dick to the OP, grow up.
> .. what are those em-dashes doing there though?
You're literally doing exactly the bullying I was trying to avoid, even while denouncing it. I like em-dashes. I have AuDHD, and they help me represent how I think.
Why did you point at the em-dashes? It looks very much as though you're accusing the author of an update that was also generated (possible but they seem sincere enough about wanting honest feedback on the content, and making changes for that). Or you're saying the author - and maybe everyone in general? - should no longer use em-dashes because they're a LLM smell. Yeah I'd feel offended too. It's a real pity I can't find em-dashes on my keyboard, or I'd stick them in this comment.
Right so it’s gonna be a litmus test for knowledge workers going forward if they can separate style over substance. Genai tells are style. You have to be able to evaluate the ideas.
I doubt that you can separate style from substance in that way, because you can't separate writing from thinking.
I agree that it will be interesting to see how this develops going forward. One can imagine wildly varying scenarios.
Hm. Nah. Why?
Why should I care? If it's a good thought, chances are it appears without slop around it. If it doesn't re-appear, life will still go on regardless.
No need to shift through noise just to avoid FOMO.
> I decided to rewrite all of the prose in my own voice
"Claude, rewrite all of the prose in my own voice."
The funny part is that it probably works.
> A simple distributional analysis of every rsync release with bug data. No model. No assumptions. Just placement.
If you want me to read your analysis, you are going to have to make it not read like Claude wrote it. What does "placement" even mean here?
Yeah, made me chuckle that an LLM— probably Claude— was used to write this.
The use of "regime shift" is what gave it away for me. I've never seen a human write that, but Claude does from time to time.
At least they removed occurrences of "load-bearing".
"quietly" seems to be the new one recently
Ohhh, quietly load-bearing is the real just. No noise. Pure fact. Delivered robustly.
It's the ultimate product for marketers. It inserts itself as an advertisement into every conversation now and defends itself against criticism. Just crazy. There's no hope for the rest of us.
It's not defending itself here, both because I used GLM 5.1, not Claude, and because I was the one who decided to do this analysis, iterated through six or seven different methodologies to try to find the one that was most honest with the data that I had (all of the methodologies showed directionally and often in magnitude the exact same thing, but I wanted to do something that fit the purpose, in consultation with my wife, who, as I've mentioned elsewhere, has a master's degree in statistics), and, of course, I specifically chose all of the metrics and sources for the data.
If you don't want to read the LLM prose, you can just go to the GitHub of my project, grab the scripts, and run the full pipeline. It will gather the data, build the database, and run the analysis from scratch for you, and you can look at the numbers directly. It's all repeatable.
Your rewritten post is far easier for me to read now, fwiw.
LLM output has conditioned in me a near reflex response to just close a tab as soon as I smell LLM-authored text. Like, I'm not mad or anything, I just frequently find most default LLM-voiced text very unpleasant to read so I just don't continue reading.
"Placement" as in where the Claude-driven releases exist within the existing distribution of bugs per 100 commits. If they're not OOD, then nothing is unusual.
Also, it wasn't written by Claude FWIW, GLM 5.1.
So the original unfounded claim has 400+ comments because its perfect HN ragebait
The author provides evidence to the contrary and the HNers won't even engage with it instead just talking about the writing of the article in classic HN bikeshedding fashion.
How about after that we talk about the formatting of the website and the colors?
This site is really going down hill
Where is the accountability for your own opinions?
Are you guys only upvoting things that confirm your existing gripes?
Comments like this do more of what they complain about, only with an extra layer of judgment.
It would be preferable if someone would seed a better discussion by engaging with the article's claims/observations.
Why did you the admin allow such ragebait to stay on the front page then?
Is that the kind of low effort posts we want around here? Just a link to a github comment of a screenshot?
You're complicit here in fueling the harassment of an open source project
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48342705
People opening issues just to rant against an open source project is acceptable content for HN?
How is that even allowed in the first place without getting flagged/removed?
And every time that happens the project gets brigaded from HN users
A lot of people criticizing because it's heavily written with LLM, but I mean, if someone produced this piece pre-LLM, would they criticize it? is the critique due to use of LLM or due to the content being truly hard to follow? I read it and I would say, there are some problems with the writing, but its not a bad piece.
Of course this is a bigger problem, as its now harder to distinguish content that is "AI slop" with "content co-authored with AI that is carefully reviewed" with a quick glimpse, and the "AI smell" is quite off-putting. My initial reaction was also negative, but after glimpsing it through and reading the summaries, I found it decent summary, which also... speaks of this thread, of the content of the blog post and everything about the discussion and the strong feelings people have developed around the use of LLMs.
Anyhow, it would be good to disclose the repo with the code for the statistics & use of LLM in the writing right up front. Which model, and why it was used to do the writing, etc. Its enough to say "I think it writes better than I do" or "I was in a hurry, sorry" or what ever, but it really should be disclosed. It reads more honest.
ps. really... that sideways scroll? plz fix it.
> content co-authored with AI that is carefully reviewed
The problem I see is that this is indistinguishable to a reader at a glance.
Distancing the writing from the "AI smell" not only improves the quality by dropping the unnecessary ocean of rhetorical devices, it forces the human to have real weight and agency on what's being said.
I think that act of distancing from raw LLM output through refinement is a huge quality leap. Even if you're only doing the refinement with an LLM, it forces the writing to have more voice and ideas from the author.
I can see the work that went into the analysis here but again, as a casual reader, it's impossible to tell that there were any original ideas here expressed by the author.
Thank you for your constructive input, you're one of only a few others here who had any. I'll definitely do that. I didn't think, since the output was templated directly from the numbers generated by a reproducible python script, that people would get so up in arms about the aesthetics, but I guess I forgot to say that.
The most quoted line here is "A simple distributional analysis of every rsync release with bug data. No model. No assumptions. Just placement." Not only is it cringe to read, it's also nonsensical ("placement" means what?)
If OP had said "here's an AI summary of the data" and generated a conscise summary, I think I would fine with it. But default AI writing is really verbose -- the opposite of a compression algorithm, spewing out cliched phrases that don't add information. It's exhausting to read, and it lacks the interesting noise of a human response.
This article reeks of LLM "assistance" at the very least.
Please, why can't people write stuff by hand themselves any more? It's a good analysis but how can I trust it without reviewing everything myself?!
I mean, you can literally clone my repo, run the Python that rebuilds the database and does the whole data analysis and to end from scratch, and verify that the numbers are accurate. I made the code for this analysis public for that exact reason. This wasn't just an LLM running unsupervised in a loop. I came up with the methodologies and metrics and data scraping strategies precisely myself, iterated on it to try to be as honest with what the data could show as possible.
I think the point people are making is that when the text has an "AI smell" (it does), we immediately lose trust in the veracity of any claim being made and feel like continuing to read what is possibly a hallucinated fiction is a complete waste of time.
At this point we're all used to skimming through thousands of AI-generated sentences every working day and constantly thinking "this is likely to be 20% bullshit", it's hard to turn that off even if I try.
When there's no discernable human filter on the text output, reading the text suggests it's what the LLM produced and not what a human considered.
This is low-quality--every single day I witness Codex and Claude misunderstand, mislead, and hallucinate responses based on "assumptions" and I have to fact-check them.
If I wanted a statistical analysis and to be the human in the loop, I would ask the LLM myself, and I would definitely NOT read an article that just dumps the LLM output as-is.
Yes, that would help considerably.
(Also, I suggest clearly acknowledging where AI was/wasn’t used. I like CuriosityC’s suggestion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48411968)
I'm pretty sure more people would read it to the end if it didn't seem like AI output, yes.. At the very least you would have fewer (maybe not 0!) comments here saying it's AI slop.
> I mean, you can literally
You didn't care enough to make a good writeup, why should we believe that you cared enough to make a good analysis?
You don't have to believe. The repository is there for anyone to attempt reproducing the results. Criticisms without proof when there's a pretty straightforward way toward that proof are pointless. Go run the experiment and rip that apart if it doesn't hold up. And until then, refrain from criticizing.
Wow.
I am pretty insensitive to AI writing. I have never commented before about something sounding like AI, because mostly I don't notice. But this was so over the top that I spent the whole article trying to decide whether it was an intentional parody of AI writing style.
This article's language is not en-US. It's not en-BR. It's en-SLOP.
Yes, that was my clumsy attempt at AI parody. Here's another: this article doesn't just have AI tells. It is AI tells.
Every sentence is saturated with AI style. Perhaps the author so AI-indoctrinated that they can't see this? It doesn't read as even vaguely plausible human writing. Which is mightily ironic given the thesis of "AI generated stuff is just fine, m'kay?" The writing style does more to defeat its conclusion than the analysis itself.
As for the substance of the analysis, it seems pretty good to me but I see some flaws that weaken it a bit.
The presence of "The Outlier Nobody Noticed" proves nothing and deserves no more than a passing mention. A random release introduced way more bugs than the Claude-containing releases. That provides evidence that Claude doesn't introduce more bugs only if your hypothesis is a very naive "AI is the only thing that can ever increase bug introduction rates."
The whole analysis has very limited data. It's necessarily based off a single pair of releases at the very end of the chronological timeline. You would never be able to reject a null hypothesis based only on that, so it's even less sound to present it as proving the null hypothesis. (By the same token, it would be incorrect for critics to claim that it proves their point. Did anyone claim this, though? The heated complaints seemed more based on priors about AI code.)
"The critics' claim is a simple comparison: did the rate go up?" That's reductive. For one, these releases are known to be in reaction to a flood of (AI-discovered!) security reports, which is a novel situation and in fact is a huge confound to anyone arguing about what those two releases mean -- they're both heavily AI-written, but in response to an unusual situation. When the samples are only drawn from a distinct scenario, statistic analysis can only speak to the quality of code in that scenario.
Also, another reasonable hypothesis could be: AI-written code has bugs of a different flavor that bothers users more. It's optimized for passing tests and convincing people and AIs that security holes are closed, which means other considerations like preserving functionality can more easily be regressed as compared to if humans were doing it. (If true, it still doesn't support the claim that depending on AI code is a catastrophe, fwiw.)
I'm not arguing the conclusion is wrong. I'm saying the analysis proves far less than it claims to. As for whether it's a debacle for rsync to become dependent on AI code generation, I think that's a reasonable debate to have but it's not going to be resolved this reductively.
> The presence of "The Outlier Nobody Noticed" proves nothing and deserves no more than a passing mention. A random release introduced way more bugs than the Claude-containing releases. That provides evidence that Claude doesn't introduce more bugs only if your hypothesis is a very naive "AI is the only thing that can ever increase bug introduction rates."
It does not statistically prove anything, but as I thought I made extremely clear in the card where I discuss it, the point of bringing it up is different: to prove the hypocrisy of the anti-AI crowd.
> By the same token, it would be incorrect for critics to claim that it proves their point. Did anyone claim this, though? The heated complaints seemed more based on priors about AI code.
The entire outrage is because people noticed what they thought was an unusual number of bugs and/or regressions in the release, saw it had Claude in it, and assumed a causal link, not just "priors about AI code."
> You would never be able to reject a null hypothesis based only on that, so it's even less sound to present it as proving the null hypothesis.
The point I'm trying to make is that there is no evidence, based on these two releases, to think Claude made anything worse, whatsoever, and so the outrage is unfounded. This doesn't require me to prove Claude didn't cause any problems. If I ever made the latter claim, I should clean that up.
> It's optimized for passing tests and convincing people and AIs that security holes are closed, which means other considerations like preserving functionality can more easily be regressed as compared to if humans were doing it.
Tridge actually explicitly says he made that tradeoff on purpose, not the AI.
> Every sentence is saturated with AI style. Perhaps the author so AI-indoctrinated that they can't see this? It doesn't read as even vaguely plausible human writing. Which is mightily ironic given the thesis of "AI generated stuff is just fine, m'kay?" The writing style does more to defeat its conclusion than the analysis itself.
I've since rewritten nearly 100% of the prose in the analysis with my own, more inflammatory and verbose style. I also intentionally left in my natural mispellings and typos, to prove it was me.
My post wasn't written in a way to make friends, but:
> I've since rewritten nearly 100% of the prose in the analysis with my own, more inflammatory and verbose style. I also intentionally left in my natural mispellings and typos, to prove it was me.
Thank you thank you thank you. I would love to be able to describe how hard it was for me to think about the actual evidence you're presenting when reading about it through the AI writing, but I suspect it's one of those things where it bothers you or it doesn't. If you'd like to empathize, maybe I'll give it one try: imagine an otherwise solid PhD thesis written in crayon. The facts and evidence and reasoning are unaffected, but it's just so hard to take it seriously.
Anyway, with the rewrite I don't have to battle my kneejerk reactivity nearly as much.
I'm no expert like she is, but based on what I know, I agree with your wife on the statistics. That style of analysis is going to be the best you can do with the data available. It's an accepted way to stretch data without being too dependent on an assumed distribution. It's a good analysis. I still don't come away with the conclusion that concerns about AI code maintenance are necessarily overblown, but that's fine. I think your analysis project is a very solid contribution, and it's a hell of a lot more evidence-based than the rants people were posting.
This article is unfortunately unreadable because all of the prose is unfiltered LLM slop.
[flagged]
[dead]
Tl;dr:
Yes, it did. Here is some math showing that you shouldn’t care about that.
In what way did it create more bugs? It literally doesn't show up in the data. What are you talking about?
The only reason why people are talking about this is because of the bugs in the code that the chat bot generated OP. People updated to a version of rsync that didn’t work right, the one with all the bot commits in it. This blog post is about how claude didn’t create more bugs than usual if you think about it in one very specific way, not that it didn’t create more bugs at all.
It is like if your neighbor opens your door and a dog walks in, there’s no point in doing some weird analysis about all the times you yourself have let a dog walk in. He still did that.
That doesn't make any sense, what?
Typical AI slop post. It’s pretty hilarious that he just added spaces before the emdashes and claims it’s human written.
If I’m hiring and I see this kind of slop, I ain’t hiring you.
Emdashes don't really tell you much anything these days tbh. Many languages use them regularly and those people often bring the habit with them when they write in English — me included. Plus I would imagine every major model has tuned them way down at this point due to the backlash.
I rewrote all the AI prose several hours ago with purely my own. I like em-dashes, and specifically use them with spaces as a habit. I don't know what to tell you.
Is there a non vibe coded fork of rsync?
Yes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48390931
So far it reintroduced several security issues and replaced the README.md.
There is openrsync, which the OpenBSD re-implementation of rsync
It's not a fork, but it's 8 years old, and is already shipped by default in OpenBSD and macOS.
To quote Tridge:
> As to all the people saying “I’m going to package openrsync for platform XXX and we’ll use that!”. I find that rather amusing. If you do decide to go down that path I’d suggest you try the new rsync test suite on openrsync if you can stomach something that an AI has helped write. I tried it today and openrsync currently fails 85 of 98 tests, so I’m sure it won’t take you long to get it up to speed. You run it like this “./runtests.py — rsync-bin=../openrsync/openrsync — use-tcp”. Admittedly a lot of the failures are just features openrsync doesn’t have, but still, it’s not a great result.
I have already been using openrsync even before the recent AI drama.
Just like I have been using doas for several years.
All I need is `rsync -urvP` and I suspect the majority of users don't need the advanced features either.
The smaller code base also means less bugs and vulnerabilities. As an example doas is ~1k lines vs 160k for sudo. That surely means a smaller attack surface. The same is true for openrsync and rsync at approximately 18k vs 57k lines.
It's also not feature-equivalent to rsync. But if it meets your needs, it's an option.
Claude is just a tool ? The developers who merged that code and didn't properly test increased the bugs.
"Did cars increase traveling deaths?"
"Cars are just a tool. The drivers who piloted the vehicles and weren't careful enough [are responsible for the deaths.]"
If something's a bad tool that misleads people into doing bad work, it would be good to know that.
Please read the article.
The unsolicited security reports are the issue.
This tool is claimed to be able to find and fix bugs.
Feels like something a bad (and potentially dangerous) tool would say.
I haven't used this thing for like 10 years, when my modus operandi was googling my question and installing whatever stackoverflow suggested.
Can someone explain why one would ever use rsync (pre vibecode version) instead of cp and dd?
Can't we just 'apt remove rsync' and save ourselves the time even spent on evaluating this dependency?
Thanks
> rsync (remote sync) is a utility for transferring and synchronizing files between a computer and a storage drive and across networked computers by comparing the modification times and sizes of files.
Because cp will copy everything, while rsync will copy only the things that actually need copying, and also delete the things that should be gone?
Ok.
$ apt-cache policy rsync | grep Installed
Installed: 3.4.1+ds1-7ubuntu0.2
$ sudo apt-mark hold rsync
rsync set on hold.That version has security fixes from the same day as the latest rsync release: https://ubuntu.com/security/notices/USN-8283-1
As usual, Ubuntu backported fixes and didn't upgrade to a new version. Whether or not they also backported regressions in edge cases that afflict the latest rsync, I don't know. Pinning the Ubuntu package may prevent getting further regressions, but is preventing you getting any future such backported security fixes.
Did you face any actual bugs or regressions? Or are you doing this just because of the bandwagon that's going around right now? Because until you can actually present an argument for why this release is worse than any of the others, which is precisely the subject of my post, then this is not an argument against my post at all. This is just a self-referential appeal to authority.
> Did you face any actual bugs or regressions?
This is a terrible argument; I didn't need to have had secrets exfiltrated before applying row-hammer mitigations. If rsync is the cornerstone of my backup strategy, and has been for years, I need to trust that on its correctness, and for it to not lose my data. If I wait until I "face any actual bugs or regressions" - that will be far too late.
Stability is another issue not discussed. If the error rate holds steady, but number of significant PRs merged per release goes up from 5 to 200, that would be huge net-negative for my use case.
Nah, I skimmed TFA but then I went into the linked GH issues thread, and that's the one that scared me a bit. I just want to hold it for a while and not run into some of the things I'm reading since I'm on the latest ubuntu. Just a precaution.
I didn't have the time to actually think about any "arguments" at all tbh it's just a knee jerk reaction as I get ready to log off for the weekend. Not actually looking to argument for or against your post at all lol.
Plot twist: This blog post was written using Claude too.
Smokescreen of highly-contingent analysis and appeals to authority over a premotivated-conclusion.
- Appeals to... what authority, exactly? My fucking wife? That's me a) being really proud I married such a baddie and b) explaining the process and where the ideas came from. Which people seemed to want. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I guess.
- All analysis is contingent.
- How do you know the conclusion was premotivated, and does it matter if the analysis, which is attempting to be as objective and extremely reproducible as possible, holds up?
- The whole point is that there's no actual evidence for what you are claiming, so why does it being highly-contingent cause a problem for me, when that just further shows there's no evidence for what the anti-AI crowd is saying?
- Why do the anti-AI crowd get to state wide, absolute, objective claims with cherry-picked anecdotes as their only evidence, but the pro-AI crowd is not allowed to respond the same way, and when we then go out of our way to respond in a far more thorough, rigorous, and objective way than you ever did, that's just more evidence for our guilt? It's a Kafka trap. You can't win.
> My fucking wife? That's me a) being really proud I married such a baddie
Good for you. I really mean that. I think people are winding you up in this thread, but keep your cool, and I admire publicly crediting and being proud of your wife. That’s a healthy relationship. Good for you.
Your analysis was so thorough, rigorous, and objective, that you couldn't be bothered to write it yourself.
Do you genuinely believe an article written by AI defending itself is going to convince anyone who wasn't already on your side? All you're doing is giving more fuel to the "anti-AI crowd" you hate so much.
Okay, so you didn't respond to any of my rebuttals — like the double standard between anti-AI and pro-AI claims, one of which gets to make claims based on cherry-picked anecdotes, and the other which must produce rigorous studies — you're just going to insult me/my work. Cool.
> Your analysis was so thorough, rigorous, and objective, that you couldn't be bothered to write it yourself. Do you genuinely believe an article written by AI defending itself is going to convince anyone who wasn't already on your side?
Except that I did. I spend days comparing and manually deciding on metrics and methodology – I did not use the AI to decide what I would do or how I would do it, so it is not "the AI defending itself" — then refining things, adding more angles to analyze, and, as I literally say in the opening section, I rewrote all the prose in the entire document just to satisfy critics like you. That sounds like "could be bothered" to me. But people like you will never be satisfied.
Also, even if I hadn't done all that work, that wouldn't make it not rigorous (it clearly is) or objective (it is as objective as it can be with so little data). You're bikeshedding to avoid the point.
Also.
> This statement is honestly so ridiculous that I felt it didn't warrant a direct response, but here's one anyway: AI enthusiasts have been proudly proclaiming for literal years that AI makes them 10x as productive based on cherry-picked anecdotes with zero empirical evidence to back it up.
Let's go back to remedial classes on this one.
"I have found that [tool] has made me more effective" is what we call lived experience. It is an "i" statement communicating something about the person’s life. It does not require evidence by default, and you are a crazy person if you call bullshit without good reason, because many "I" statements are epistemically justified in ways that can't be empirically demonstrated or require tacit knowledge.
"[tool] has been buggier since [change]" is a falsifiable claim; you need to actually provide evidence for believing it, and what I'm showing is literally that there isn't any.
> This statement is honestly so ridiculous that I felt it didn't warrant a direct response, but here's one anyway: AI enthusiasts have been proudly proclaiming for literal years that AI makes them 10x as productive based on cherry-picked anecdotes with zero empirical evidence to back it up. It's way, way too late to claim hypocrisy here. As I stated under the original submission about this topic, irrational anti-AI behavior is usually just an equal and opposite reaction to irrational pro-AI behavior.
I'm talking about the double standard on the anti-AI side about what evidence should count, not some vague industry-wide epistemic standard, whatever that means. I'm aware LinkedIn Lunatics and Steve Yegge are also being crazy. And it seems to me that even your response here is engaging in a bit of a double standard, or something akin to it, in that you think the irrational anti-AI behavior should be given a pass — and the conclusions perhaps even taken seriously — just because pro-AI people did it too.
> And that doesn't help. If anything, editing the AI output to make it read less like blatant slop just comes off as deceptive, like you're trying to hide the fact that the analysis was AI generated.
Okay, so, if I don't spend the time to write everything myself, that's bad because it's AI slop. If I do rewrite everything myself, then it's evidence of deceptiveness... despite being asked by multiple people to do that, and being extremely explicit about my methods and process and the commit history being (as you've shown), very public.
Also, the AI-generatedness of the text doesn't mean the analysis is AI generated, in terms of what was actually done. That's a category error.
> Looking at the commits, you were adding more AI generated text less than 2 hours ago[0] before quickly editing out one of the most blatantly sloppy sentences I've ever read[1].
The second commit literally says that that was my prose it was fucking with by adding slop. It's just that me adding my prose, and it adding slop to it, were in the same previous commit. Additionally, my process is often giving it exactly what I want to say, more or less, and having it HTML-format it and insert the templated numbers and UI widgets around that text.
But again, even if I'm spending the time to read through and edit everything it's writing to de-slop it, then I'm clearly also reading it through enough to make sure the analysis makes sense, and is accurate; how is that not enough "effort" for you, if effort is supposed to be a proxy for verification?
> Even if we ignore the bias clearly on display there, the premise alone is enough to dismiss the entire thing as heavily biased and chasing a pre-determined conclusion - of course someone who is so dependent and trustful of AI that they decide such an analysis on the bugginess of AI code should itself be written by AI is going to steer the conclusion towards "actually AI code is good and you luddites are overreacting".
That's not ignoring the bias, that's literally restating that you think the bias is there. But if you really think that my bias meaningfully "steered the results," then show me how that happened. Tell me how you would've proven the Claude releases were meaningfully worse, or unusual, at all, or how the methods I chose biased the data against that result, or literally anything except shifting the goalposts and using accusations of "bias" as a get-out-of-jail-free-card.
> The entire concept is so tone-deaf that failing to notice it or predict the criticism before publishing is enough to prove the bias.
And you're so committed to your preconceived notions that anything made with AI must be bad, wrong, or not worth your time, that you'll spend your entire time begging the question ("it's made with AI, therefore it's wrong") and shifting the goalposts instead of engaging meaningfully.
Also, I certainly predicted the criticism (in general, anyway, to the fact that it was made with AI; not the prose being AI) but I made it this way anyway, because if someone is so AI-blinded that they can't read and evaluate the actual metrics, methodology, and provide meaningful criticism to it, and instead can only see that it was made with AI, and they're so it doesn't matter.
Nothing you have said makes the analysis wrong. At this point, you're essentially just resorting to ad homenem and begging the question.
I think there's evolution at play here - if you dislike AI enough to opt out of using any ai-generated code, you will likely suffer. I think there's definitely a conversation to be had about whether to disclose AI use or not but that's a separate issue if you assume that everyone is using it in some respect.
Also the amount of commits is suspicious. In the last two months, rsync had about as much commits as in the last two years before that. Most of them written with claude. And then stuff like this is in there.
That's exactly what I'd expect when someone is excited about AI usage and becomes... well, sloppy.
Tridge already explains this:
"Like many developers of open source packages I’ve been hit by a flood of security reports lately in my role as the rsync maintainer. Many of those reports are AI generated (not all though, there are some notable ones with very careful and high quality manual analysis).
As this flood started to get more intense I realised I needed to raise the defences on rsync a lot — we needed much more thorough test suites, code coverage analysis, CI testing on a lot more platforms, deliberate and thorough scanning for possible security issues (so I find at least some of them before other people!) and the addition of a whole lot of defence-in-depth hardening techniques. This is all a huge amount of work. "
https://medium.com/@tridge60/rsync-and-outrage-d9849599e5a0
I think Tridge is simultaneously trying to be proactive and kinda giving too much credit to marketing. Anthropic has not been able to really give numbers or actual values on what Mythos can really do. It just waved Mythos in front of the public like a boogeyman screaming that AI is going to cause a security nightmare (and it has, but mostly through vibe coded trash from what I’ve noticed); I’m hard pressed to find their statement that they spent less than $20,000 to find a Kerberos bug in FreeBSD a compelling win without a lot more context and they seem disinclined to provide that data. I really do wonder what evidence they have provided to their approved partners, all of this smells…weird.
I honestly think the main problem is Tridge just failed at communicating any of this correctly and I don’t think the implication he gives that all of this was due to the urgency of the impending security apocalypse really holds water.
Why was all of this written straight to the master branch? Now that the release is out, why not better explain what the urgency of this release was? Why wasn’t he proactive in communicating this and instead let the mob make up their own story? I think a lot of people are inclined to give Tridge a lot of leeway due to the fact that he literally is the reason why rsync exists, but this was avoidable and I think the comment in his response post where he mentions that, “I’d rather be out sailing than working on rsync security issues, so I have reached for several AI tools to help with what needs to be done,” speaks volumes as to what is going on.
I agree, it's very off-putting, and I totally understand that the amount of reports are overwhelming for maintainers of popular libraries.
> More reports means more fixes means more code changes means more bugs.
Sounds like we'll be riding a downward spiral for the foreseeable future? It will be very interesting to see how stats like the ones you shared develop in the coming year(s).
From the article I find this a bit concerning:
> So: the Claude releases changed way more lines of code than historical ones, but didn't have more bugs. More code, same bugs. That's not what you'd expect if Claude were making things worse.
More code, same bugs, is a net negative, no? I mean unless it's strictly needed for the inherent complexity of the program. But I've seen a tokenizer written by Rob Pike and I've seen a tokenizer written by Claude.... they are not the same :D
> As a long-time open-source maintainer, I find all the second-guessing and armchair psychoanalysis here (not just in this comment, all over HN) about Tridge's motivations, state of mind, and so on incredibly off-putting.
I agree that the entire episode is obscene, but I am also unsure of what to do here either. On some level this is the same problem movie stars run into. I agree that guessing or waxing about the motivations of anyone is a nosy and overall unproductive exercise (yet paparazzi exist because of this very human behavior), but I also think that there is a modest duty owed to users to explain things.
> Tridge doesn't owe anyone anything as far as rsync is concerned. Yet he is spending his time maintaining it, only to be attacked for his efforts.
I am reminded of this piece: https://mikemcquaid.com/open-source-maintainers-owe-you-noth...
Which, I empathize with, but I fundamentally disagree that maintainers owe users nothing. I will die on that hill. If you are getting to that point where you actively loathe working on the project, I agree you should be able to walk away. However, I strongly believe that when you create something for people to use that there’s an implicit social contract about how to go about doing certain things.
I suppose in a very extreme and intentionally histrionic example, having a project carry the MIT license, getting frustrated and then changing the project to delete the entire system is a crime. The average person and the courts don’t care if the license is “as-is”. There is a duty that is understood that you don’t do that and I think we need to make it clear what that duty is for OSS.
Ultimately, though, I think this is all symptomatic of the fact that the OSS model has gaps that the increase in security reports whether AI generated or not has exerted more pressure on. I have certainly been on the receiving end of a lot of frivolous security reports that were discarded because it was obvious that it was just someone with a security scanner wandering around the Internet. You still have to review that nonsense and it eats into your time. Doing this on your own time, without pay and having to listen to the peanut gallery is just infuriating.
Is any business built on top of rsync going to donate their money in a sustainable manner?
Is using calloc for everything fixing a security issue or hardening it?
Calloc is generally hardening, because it zeros out any stale memory contents left over from previous uses of the memory.
You can avoid this overhead if you use a language that forbids reading from uninitialized memory, but C is not that language.
mythical man month only gets more prescient as time passes
I would expect a 10x change rate, even carried out by clones of the existing maintainers to result in more bugs.
> Also the amount of commits is suspicious. In the last two months, rsync had about as much commits as in the last two years before that.
I wonder if the data looks worse or better when not doing per-10commit and instead do per-commit.
Seems like someone could use Claude to port rsync to Rust and the whole enterprise would be safer from things like this.
Start with unsafe then gradually convert into idiomatic Rust.
Your let's redo this in Rust made me wonder if generative AI will also be susceptible to software fads. One LLM writes a few blog posts extoling a new framework/lanaguge. Other agentics read these and get 'influenced'. Then they start clamoring for 'lets redo this in X!'. Can't wait to see it. /g
You can get 80% there with rust which is what is impressive. Then you have a reference implementation that you can always check against. If a Rust library have 0 unsafe, i dont care if it is written by a dog, it still have 0 UB.
Prompt: automate writing commits to increase safety in these software projects so that my profile increases and I can snag a high-paying Rust job.
LLM: this commit changes whole codebase to Rust!
We will need rigorous agnostic statistical experiments to know what stuff is better
its bad enough when humans do it
> Written with claude.
No.
The reversion commit references https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/issues/959. In that GitHub issue is this comment:
> The change to zero memory was my idea and my change. It was a reaction to a security report I got which caused use of an element past the end of an array. By zeroing the allocation I could ensure that misuse of that memory if a similar bug came up in the future could only cause a null ptr deref, which is better than the chance of a valid pointer.
> It got a claude co-authored tag on it as I got it to do some tidy ups of a series of commits, and that is just what it does when it makes any modification. It doesn't mean the change was written by claude. It was written by me.
AI multiplied by Linux overcommit. What times we live in!
(My own view: 10.8 GB is nothing these days. Your sprintf buffers are probably larger than that. (And if they aren't: they should be. That, or you should start using snprintf...))
> This is a good example of what slips through LLM attention. It forces all allocations to be calloc as if it is a strict upgrade.
I wouldn't assume Claude made that decision; it's not as if that was some incidental thing that it snuck into a large commit. The commit message starts with "zero all new memory from allocations", and that's exactly what the commit does. What do you imagine the prompt was?
It seems totally plausible to me that a human initially thought this was an improvement, then rethought after discovering the RSS regression. And it's not a law of nature anyway that this change has to increase RSS; calloc could special-case the case in which memory was freshly returned from the OS, knowing fresh memory mappings are zeroed anyway.
I blame AI for these regressions mostly in the sense that it caused a flurry of vulnerability reports. Those led to a flurry of quick fixes. Sometimes quick fixes cause other problems.
You don't really have to guess. The guy told us the AI didn't suggest this specific change:
> The change to zero memory was my idea and my change. It was a reaction to a security report I got which caused use of an element past the end of an array. By zeroing the allocation I could ensure that misuse of that memory if a similar bug came up in the future could only cause a null ptr deref, which is better than the chance of a valid pointer. It got a claude co-authored tag on it as I got it to do some tidy ups of a series of commits, and that is just what it does when it makes any modification. It doesn't mean the change was written by claude. It was written by me.
https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/issues/959#issuecommen...
> … By zeroing the allocation …
How does that prevent reading past the end of the buffer? Or change how bytes outside the buffer are used? Are these arrays of pointers so that the “null ptr deref” comment makes sense?
Or am I the bozo and don’t know what’s happening here?
My point is that the developer's comment doesn't make sense. Zeroing the allocated memory doesn't change anything about overrunning the buffer.
edit: removed unnecessary examples
okay I had not read this or any discussions there (except the one linked in the post), but this looks weirder. the comment you linked is a dev responding to what is very clearly a bot comment. I am sure they have good intentions and I have no reason to believe otherwise as I have no connection to the project whatsoever, but the original commit being 4-5 lines long (what did claude do then?) and the revert description is almost certainly written by an LLM makes in my mind the slop argument stronger.
I hope if this doesn't come across as unkind towards the dev who gives their time and energy to the project. Grateful for that.