• Mark with a Z@suppo.fi
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    10 hours ago

    One big reason people outright reject AI generated code is that it shifts the work from author to the reviewer. AI makes it easier to make low effort commits that look good on surface, but are very flawed. So far LLMs don’t match the wisdom of an experienced software dev.

    • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 hours ago

      This is what happened with FFMpeg when Google was trying the same thing to promote their models. If the code is good, and doesn’t put unnecessary burden on the reviewer, then that’s great. But when the patches are sloppy or the reviews are overwhelming, it doesn’t help the project, it hinders it.

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 hours ago

        It’s almost like there should be a human in the loop to guide and review what the ai is doing.

        The thing works a lot better when I give it smaller chunks of work that I know are possible. Works best when I know how to implement it myself and it just saves me from looking up all the syntax.

    • sun_is_ra@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 hours ago

      totally agee also same problem with published scientific papers .

      I just assume that since this code submission was done by Anthropic itself - probably to demonstrate how good their AI has became ( I don’t know what is the actual background to this story) - FFmpeg team gave it more consideration as opposed to a random amature.