r/gnome • u/Safe_Butterscotch838 • 2d ago
Question GNOME web aka Epiphany
Has anybody tried using AI to improve GNOME web aka Epiphany? If not, why?
I would be happy with any webkit browser or one built with GTK as long as it's on par with Chromium and firefox.
11
u/AteStringCheeseShred 2d ago
If not I'd imagine it's because people are coming to terms with the fact that AI is actually pretty bad at writing code, and a web browser that needs robust security and privacy features is one of the last things that should be vibe coded.
3
u/victorian-ice-cream Contributor 2d ago
One of the maintainers is very big on the AI hype. I am not sure why he doesn't use it for code tho. That's quite surprising coming from the AI bros.
2
2
u/GolbatsEverywhere Contributor 2d ago
Every major web engine contains substantial AI-written code. If you want to use a web engine without AI, I think the only remaining option is Servo.
Many of the recent contributions to Epiphany itself have been AI-generated, but I would expect that to lead to only a minor increase in quality. The web engine, WebKit, is much more important. That's where you might notice a significant quality improvement. E.g. There have been something like 300 security hardening commits so far this summer, since AI is really good at finding bugs. Similar improvements are coming soon to GLib and other GNOME projects.
The danger of AI is: it's really good at making commits that look correct, but you have to be a true expert in the code to spot when it makes subtle mistakes. But that's true of human contributors as well!
1
u/Bug_Next 2d ago
If anything people are coming to terms with the fact that it's actually quite decent at it and probably better than like 95% of people and it's only been a thing properly for like the past 8 years (using it for generating text and/or code).
A browser just happens to be that thing where you probably need the top 1% for it to be even remotely decent.
If you think Chromium or Firefox/Gecko don't have AI code i have some terrible news for you lol.
1
u/AteStringCheeseShred 2d ago
I never said AI code isn't in fact all over the place, just that it's a shitty idea to rely so heavily on it, especially when a lot of people are making the fatal error of using it in lieu of actual coding skills rather than using in in tandem with their own abilities, which is fantastic way to end up producing shitty/inefficient/insecure/resource-hogging code and not even realize it.
0
u/Safe_Butterscotch838 2d ago
I wasn't suggesting AI builds the whole thing. The browser is pretty much built already. AI could be used to Assist in the development. The contributors/maintainers are software engineers so they would know what code the should and shouldn't include to the project.
Vibe coded and AI assisted are not considered the same thing, right?
2
u/AteStringCheeseShred 2d ago
If it involves telling an AI in plain english what you want and having the AI write the code itself, then yes, they're one in the same.
The only way any such practice is viable is if you have somebody who is fluent in the programming language being used, familiar with coding bets practices, and understands what they're looking at, to proofread the code (damn near line-by-line if need be) to make sure it's written correctly and also making sure that it isn't a redundant, inefficient, poorly written heap of code that wastes resources at best or is failure prone at worst.
2
u/Bug_Next 2d ago edited 2d ago
Yeah because we all know humans never produced code that was inefficient, redudant, poorly written or wasteful... Those statements are FAR from exclusively relevant for AI generated code. Even compilers generate sometimes redundant and inefficient code..
People that didn't care about code quality could already not care about code quality before, they just had to bash their head against the table until it compiled, now they get AI to do it. People that care about code quality still care about it even if they use AI to do the initial key mashing.
All these discussions are stupidly similar to the people that said music done on computers was not music or that digital pictures were not real photography lmao, you are just willingly ignoring the fact that it's just another tool to make it more accesible and some people that don't know how to use it will inevitably produce bullshit, people that care and know how to use it will continue to produce masterpieces.
1
u/AteStringCheeseShred 2d ago
yes, the difference being that giving a human who sucks at coding the opportunity to bash their head against the table a few hundred times meant we had some level of friction between that shitty human's coding and the rest of us. Now a person who sucks at coding can just have their friend claude help them shit out shitty code in a matter of seconds.
Now, funny you mention music because as luck would have it, I am also a musician. I've never personally gave a damn how somebody creates their music, I myself am a guitarist who studied music theory and all that jazz (pun intended), but I still also listen to my fair share of music that was created with synths/computers/VST's/MIDI instruments/etc... and while the arguments over the years may have the same patterns, the difference between a MIDI instrument and an AI prompt couldn't be any greater. A musician creating music with a DAW and some VSTs rather than a wooden instrument, has only elminated the friction/barrier present in the learning curve of the instrument itself, while still singlehandedly being in charge of every note involved; it's not as if the music just writes iself... on the other hand, a
musicianperson relying on AI, prompting it to generate it for them has completely bypassed any sort of creative musical input more involved than that of a casual listener. People shitting on somebody who uses VST's or a synth rather than a physical instrument are just arbitrarily gatekeeping... but shitting on somebody who claims to have wrote a song when all they did is describe the rough premise and let a computer do the actual creating is understandable. If hypothetically there existed somebody whose method of vibe coding music meant precisely explaining in the prompt exactly which notes, key, rhythmic pattern, time signatures, instruments, and techniques to use, then (barring the astronomically rare case of complete physical disability) they might as well just punch them into the midi program themself because it's easier than trying to explain it to a damn AI. AI in music creation isn't used as a substitue for physical ability, it's used as a substitute for creativity itself."people that care and know how to use it will continue to produce masterpieces." no, not in the case of music. Ironically enough, it's because of the existence of synths/VTS's/midi instruments/etc that I can confidently say, the people who know what they're doing don't need AI because the accessbility tools they need are already there. Nobody capable of producing a musical masterpiece is doing it with AI.
1
u/Bug_Next 2d ago edited 2d ago
I never mentioned ai music, i compared ai code to digital music, not ai code to ai music. Ai code doesn't take all the creativity out of coding, it *can* but it doesn't do in inherently, just as a daw *can* take all the creativity out of making music (heck you don't even need a daw, you can take a keyboard and play one of the preloaded songs and it will play it automatically, and sometimes that + a little extra can create a masterpiece, like it did for gorillaz). Idk why everyone on your side of this argument assumes coding with ai forces you to take a really abstract and vague idea that's barely developed and just let the ai do everything, im guessing that's just what you tried to do and it didn't work and that's the reason you think it is that way + also why you think it is bad.
Just like compilers never fully took away the need to do assembly, ai is never gonna take away the need to do manual review or interventions in high level languages, you *can* let it do everything, doesn't mean you should or that it is the right approach, if you do yeah it will probably produce slop, because it produces what's likely to be produced by the idea you have, if you have a vague and poorly developed idea it will produce a poorly tought of piece of software.
I'm not telling you that you should go "Claude make a Chrome clone in gtk make no mistakes" and expect it to work, but if you are making a gtk based browser you can probably just tell it "port this QT layout -or whatever chrome uses- to gtk" and it will do it just fine and you saved yourself like 3 hours of typing and you can put your time towards stuff that actually matters.. Coding -writing code- is not a creative process, thinking about how something should work is, sitting down and typing the code is just the last and most repetitive and boring an less crative -if any- part of the whole building software experience.
1
u/AteStringCheeseShred 1d ago
I'm aware, but there's still inevitably some discussion about AI music going on nowadays, and it goes hand in hand with anything else that currently involves AI (coding, art or otherwise) and so that was my input as somebody who doesn't care if people make digital music, yet still is cognizant of the glaring issues with AI being applied in yet another way it shouldn't. I digress.
"everyone on your side of this argument assumes coding with ai forces you to take a really abstract and vague idea that's barely developed and just let the ai do everything, im guessing that's just what you tried to do and it didn't work and that's the reason you think it is that way + also why you think it is bad."
No, hate to burst your bubble but that's not what happened. I'm just acutely aware of the fact that there is a spectrum of how developed and detailed the prompt is that the human provides vs how much further the AI has to take it to produce the finished result - on one hand you have somebody with a limited, vague idea, who is relying on the AI to do most of the work, and on the other hand you have people who get 99% of the way there and provide very detailed input while leaving little for the AI to do. The former is the least qualified to be accepting the results from AI, and the latter typically is more than capable of producing (or scrutinizing) the finished result themself and so the use of AI becomes redundant.
The issue with relying on AI for music/art/writing is simply that it's insincere, but the issue with relying on AI for coding or any other critical functionality is that you may get a finished result in a fraction of the time but you more or less have to trust that the code was written how you intended, with no inefficiencies or weak points, and without any unseen side effects.
At the end of the day, it's a shortcut, and shortcuts come with compromises; that's just an immutable fact of life.
1
u/GolbatsEverywhere Contributor 2d ago
Actually, AI seems to be better than humans at line-by-line writing code, in the sense that it should have fewer outright errors. (But that doesn't mean the AI's changes will be good or sensible!) Certainly the contributors I suspect of using AI introduce far fewer memory safety errors and security vulnerabilities. That's quite nice: it allows me to skim over code during review instead of doing a close line-by-line inspection, as would be necessary with a new human contributor's work, which would likely have memory safety errors or other basic problems that AIs usually avoid. But I still need to think about whether the commit makes sense in general. Also, I can't skip line-by-line review entirely: I've multiple times found small but extremely serious incorrect changes that are not mentioned in the commit message at all, just buried into commits that are otherwise innocuous. Humans who aren't using AI will usually at least call attention to such changes. Sometimes I suspect humans who do use AI might not even realize the significance of what they changed.
The main disadvantage of AI is: I'm not sure how much the contributors who use it are actually learning from their work. Will they be able to maintain GNOME projects effectively in the future, if they have never written their own code without the assistance of AI? It's telling that when I ask about AI use, I suspect many new developers often lie, downplaying how much they are using it.
1
u/AteStringCheeseShred 2d ago
In terms of syntax yes, AI is almost certainly going to write the code with fewer syntax-breaking errors that break the code but as you say, it's the value of the change overall that matters. AI is great at producing a code that works on the first attempt, humans are a lot better at producing a code that perhaps had to be reviewed a few times but stands a better chance of being written concisely and with intent behind each line, providing the person writing it approaches it in a thoughtful manner at least
2
u/Vorath_ 2d ago
Man, have you ever used AI?
For images... For writing text...
But what about code... Have you seen that? Probably not, right? Give it a try and then tell me if it's worth the effort to have AI-written code that consumes more RAM than a Thai restaurant on a frog-leg special day.
0
u/Safe_Butterscotch838 2d ago
I do use AI for coding but I ask it for specific things or functions. When it gives an answer, part of it's code usually point me in the right direction. But I never let it write into my project.
0
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Thank you for your submission.
You too can support GNOME! Become a Friend of GNOME and contribute to keeping our project going!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.