Hacker News Reader

Comment by armchairhacker | Hacker News Reader

If nuclear power scientists claimed they had a bomb that could level an entire city, Hiroshima would prove them correct.

vividfrier claims they haven’t written a line of code (implying other employees are similar), and their big company is operating normally. Bun is a big project and the rewrite is entirely LLM-generated. If its development continues normally, it reinforces the claim’s plausibility and proves someone made a large change (rewrite) entirely using AI. If not, it provides strong doubt: either vividfrier’s company is doing something different that avoids Bun’s problems (maybe other employees are still writing code manually), or they’re misleading or lying.

View on HN

The way it'll play out is, if nothing happens denialists will claim "nothing has happened YET!", and if anything happens, those same people will claim "you see, writing AI code is a terrible idea!".

People write code differently, AI models write code differently, AI systems write code differently, companies create systems that write AI-written code differently, etc.

The system that wrote Bun bears no relationship to the system that writes OP's code.

Making such absolute statements about AI-written code is as dumb as making absolute statements about human-written code on the basis that it's "human-written".

Likewise, if anything happens, AI hypists will claim they used the tools wrong, just wait 6 months, etc.

It's plausible that OP's company is succeeding with 100% AI-generated code, even if Bun fails, but it's also plausibly false. Anyone can claim anything on the internet, what separates BS from reality is evidence.

I didn't write that Bun's rewrite absolutely proves or disproves OP's claim, I wrote that it provides evidence; it does, much more than OP's word.

It's also plausible that OP's claim is true, but only because despite being in a "big tech" company, they've been working on small self-contained repos, throwaway scripts, etc. The implications of this would be much different than what their comment suggests, which is another reason evidence matters: it forces them to narrow their claim, because anyone can make an overzealous claim from a small example.

The OP said they keep repos small and self contained in a mature codebase, and they code review everything before releasing.

That’s very different than converting a massive codebase one-off to an entire different language, while depending on tests to keep it contained.

Scale and process is dramatically different than the Bun case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com