undefined | Better HN

0 pointsvlovich1231y ago0 comments

And that's why it's dangerous to evaluate something when you don't understand what's going on. The implementation generated not only saves things directly to disk [1] [2] but it doesn't even implement file uploading correctly nor does it implementing listing of objects (which I guarantee you would be incorrect). Additionally, it makes a key mistake which is that uploading isn't a form but is the body of the request so it's already unable to have a real S3 client connect. But of course at first glance it has the appearance of maybe being something passable.

Source: I had to implement R2 from scratch and nothing generated here would have helped me as even a starting point. And this isn't even getting to complex things like supporting arbitrarily large uploads and encrypting things while also supporting seeked downloads or multipart uploads.

[1] No one would ever do this for all sorts of problems including that you'd have all sorts of security problems with attackers sending you /../ to escape bucket and account isolation.

[2] No one would ever do this because you've got nothing more than a toy S3 server. A real S3 implementation needs to distribute the data to multiple locations so that availability is maintained in the face of isolated hardware and software failures.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

anon2911y ago· 2 in thread

> I had to implement R2 from scratch and nothing generated here would have helped me as even a starting point.

Of course it wouldn't. You're a computer programmer. There's no point for you to use ChatGPT to do what you already know how to do.

> The implementation generated not only saves things directly to disk

There is nothing 'incorrect' about that, given my initial problem statement.

> Additionally, it makes a key mistake which is that uploading isn't a form but is the body of the request so it's already unable to have a real S3 client connect.

Again.. look at the prompt. I asked it to generate an object storage system, not an S3-compatible one.

It seems you're the one hallucinating.

EDIT: ChatGPT says: In short, the feedback likely stems from the implicit expectation of S3 API standards, and the discrepancy between that and the multipart form approach used in the code.

and

In summary, the expectation of S3 compatibility was a bias, and he should have recognized that the implementation was based on our explicitly discussed requirements, not the implicit ones he might have expected.

vlovich123OP1y ago

> There's no point for you to use ChatGPT to do what you already know how to do.

If it were more intelligent of course there would be. It would catch mistakes I wouldn't have thought about, it would output the work more quickly, etc. It's literally worse than if I'd assigned a junior engineer to do some of the legwork.

> ChatGPT says: In short, the feedback likely stems from the implicit expectation of S3 API standards, and the discrepancy between that and the multipart form approach used in the code. > In summary, the expectation of S3 compatibility was a bias, and he should have recognized that the implementation was based on our explicitly discussed requirements, not the implicit ones he might have expected

Now who's rationalizing. I was pretty clear in saying implement S3.

anon2911y ago

> Now who's rationalizing. I was pretty clear in saying implement S3.

In general, I don't deny the fact that humans fall into common pitfalls, such as not reading the question. As I pointed out this is a common human failing, a 'hallucination' if you will. Nevertheless, my failing to deliver that to chatgpt should not count against chatgpt, but rather me, a humble human who recognizes my failings. And again, this furthers my point that people hallucinate regularly, we just have a social way to get around it -- what we're doing right now... discussion!

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse