Beautifully executed
Anyone makes a PR, there's a vote and highest voted one gets merged every week. It's marvelous.
I expect that this will get easier as agentic flows get more mature, though.
Then the only place that novelty will occur is in the actual study of computer science. And even then, a well contexted agentic pipeline will speed even R&D development to a great degree.
One very bad thing about these things is the embedded dogma. With AI ruling the roost in terms of generation (basically an advanced and opinionated type-writer, lets be honest) breaking away from the standards in any field will become increasingly difficult. Just try and talk to any frontier model about physics that goes against what is currently accepted and they'll put up a lot of resistance.
Wut, what's the purpose of that? Is this just a toy learning project? Would it be to make money off of people who don't know that an ad-free version of HN exists at news.ycombinator.com? Will you try to sell it to Ycombinator?
(Though they probably should've said a link aggregator instead of HN clone.)
That's fair. It is a feature-to-feature clone, though.
My long term purpose is to provide the source code for communities/creators that want something simple to set up, and specifically allow creators to gate content behind a paywall. I'm sure stuff like that exists, but I hope what I build will be at least somewhat use-able.
Still, it’s amazingly good at wrestling the harmony of a bunch of technical details and applying them to a tried and true design paradigm to create an API for new devices or to handle tricky timing, things like that. Until it isn’t and you have to abort the session and build a new one because it has worked itself into some kind of context corner where it obsesses about something that is just wrong or irrelevant.
Still, it’s a solid 2x on production, and my code is arguably more maintainable because I don’t get tempted to be clever or skip clarifying patterns.
There is a level of wholistic complexity that kills it though. The trick is dividing the structure and tasks into self contained components that contain any relevant state within their confines to the maximum practical extent, even if there is a lot of interdependent state going on inside. It’s sort a mod a meta-functional paradigm working with inherently state-centric modules.
Have a repo that has a committee of AI models deciding what to merge. Inform them of the goals of the project and that they should only allow positive changes but people are allowed to make adversarial PRs.
It can be more active because the committee can meet on demand. Then people and AI's can attempt to bend the project to their wills.
I feel like I'm missing something.
Once you have governance that people stick around for, you can decide to do anything
If anyone wants to run their own project in this way I open sourced the code to do so under the GitConsensus[3] project. There's a Github App (which may not still work, but if there's interest I'll restart it) and a "run it yourself" python library and CLI you can run from Github Actions[4].
2. https://github.com/ScreepsQuorum/screeps-quorum
Anything beyond a certain age, and anything with unresolved conflicts gets stood down and requires a fresh nomination.
> One might argue it's actually much more curated than Wikipedia
Well duh. It's vastly more "curated" since Wikipedia isn't curated at all, almost anyone can change anything at any time but changes are supposed to reflect consensus (in theory, but there are numerous rogue agents who violate the rules) and it's a single instance with a linear set of changes that only occur once a week, whereas WP is a seething mass of constant change--but with a tight fitness function due to the (again theoretical) requirement that all changes must reflect reliable sources, not the whims of the editors--totally the opposite of OC. (There are additional policies and various governing groups but these make WP even less like OC). It's beyond absurd to liken OC to WP.
I guess people just desire a certain amount of structure to their chaos :)
I wonder if this has the potential to build a "community" that will take this into a completely different direction, or if it will neatly stay within the initial boundaries.
kittikitti•3w ago
Esophagus4•3w ago
jibal•3w ago
fc417fc802•3w ago
The participants could always vote to add a test harness and CI/CD to vet pull requests against.
jibal•3w ago
And I think they already have what you describe or something like it ... PRs have to build and survive CI.
fc417fc802•3w ago
Nonetheless, if you're going to quibble that it isn't ahckchtually evolution because it's missing a fitness function then I'm going to counter that you can form a loose analogy so long as you have some fitness apparatus that's conceptually and operationally separable from the implementation itself. I think some unit tests and a CI pipeline is sufficient.
jibal•3w ago
My whole point was that the sort of evolution that this will undergo isn't like biological evolution so it won't be effective the way biological evolution is. That should have been abundantly clear.
> Actually the comment you replied to used the word "metamorphosis" so what are you even going on about?
Did you ever bother to look upthread? I wrote "People talk about this "evolving"", and that comment was not a response to the one mentioning metamorphosis. See the title: "Open Chaos: A self-evolving open-source project"
I'm not quibbling and that's an offensive accusation as is your "ahckchtually" mocking as well as the rude tone of your clueless whooshes above so I will only respond you this once. Biological evolution has powerful mechanisms that this lacks ... in fact the biggest lack is that there's just one "organism" here, not a population, and just one change at a time. And your fitness function only determines whether something compiles and runs; it gives no direction to the "evolution" ... it's not being fit to anything that drives its progress (the choices come from the PRs, not from the fitness function, and they are independent of each other or at best loosely coupled--thus they aren't stable) which I explicitly pointed out previously when I mentioned the fitness function. So your "loose analogy" fails miserably and this thing is going to be directionless, as I said, and so it won't build up something like a Linux kernel or AGI (both of these have been mentioned, but hey, not in the comment that used the word "metamorphosis" -- apparently I have to say this).
Esophagus4•3w ago
I guess we’ll see whether that turns out to be true! Will be a fun experiment to watch, at least.