Thread

1. zzzeek · 1791054135 · focus · HN ↗

   banning AI from PRs because you're swamped with too many low quality PRs, definitely. We pretty much are doing this with SQLAlchemy. If I'm going to have a small fix or improvement coded by an LLM (which I do all the time), I want to prompt the LLM directly, rather than having someone trying to pad their resume forward my communications onto their LLM via PRs. What's the point of that?

   1. baq · 1791057685 · focus · HN ↗

      rejecting low quality ones should be the norm regardless of whether an AI or a human wrote them. the question is what would happen if you were swamped with high quality PRs? what will happen once you are? (that's probably a 2027 question!)

      1. zzzeek · 1791069073 · focus · HN ↗

         yeah a lot of LLM PRs are pretty good, but still need changes, and still didnt come from my own prompting which would have got them more exactly where I want them, so it's again, I have to put messages on a PR and wait for someone somewhere to see them and act on them. That friction is a huge waste of time if they're just prompting their own robot. I have the same robot right here and I usually use opus 5.x which is usually better than what they're using.

         1. baq · 1791116600 · focus · HN ↗

            I think it’s perfectly ok to just tell your robot how to get a good pr to a state you like and merge it then. You should of course let folks know that this is the policy, but ultimately if it solves their problem the way you like it and you didn’t have to spend your tokens on it everybody wins…?

            1. zzzeek · 1791121526 · focus · HN ↗

               i use claude max and ive yet to get even 30% into my quota for it. so as long as that kind of deal lasts i dont think much about tokens.

               if i did have to think about tokens I use something like together.ai with an open weight model like glm 5.3 (which ill sometimes use to review a claude change for something intricate). glm 5.x is just very chatty though

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.