That is an absolutely terrible standard. In fact, that’s technically not even a standard. The “I know it when I see it” measure is literally the logic used in censorship. It allows cognitive biases to seep in with no check. A lack of hard metrics means that there’ zero ways there can be any objective consistency. And finally, this kind of rationale makes the biggest sin that I can think of, “non-falsifiability”.
Whatever people’s opinion on AI are or are not. This logic should wholly be rejected in every instance it is brought forth. It is literally the antithesis of rational thought.
no, as someone whose entire job is code reviewing ai slop you LITERALLY know at first sight just by looking at it what is written by an LLM and what is written by a real person.
Sure, but that’s not what this is about. This isn’t just banning AI-written code, it’s banning AI-assisted code. If you even use a Google Gemini “AI-summary” at the top of your search results for something simple like the name of a function, then your code is AI-assisted.
There’s no way anyone can detect that. And banning it is silly.
But the point is, imho, that if nobody can tell if it’s AI-assisted, then who cares? This is more for them to fire a warning shot that you’d better be sure your AI-assisted code is good enough to pass, or they can reject or and, potentially, ban you without notice.
as someone who has a similar job, i don’t think it’s so obvious. there’s a lot of middle ground between an AI slop PR and artisanal, hand-crafted code. if i use a library or algorithm or pattern suggested by ChatGPT or use Copilot to autocomplete a simple function or have Claude generate test cases, that’s all “AI assisted”.
That is an absolutely terrible standard. In fact, that’s technically not even a standard. The “I know it when I see it” measure is literally the logic used in censorship. It allows cognitive biases to seep in with no check. A lack of hard metrics means that there’ zero ways there can be any objective consistency. And finally, this kind of rationale makes the biggest sin that I can think of, “non-falsifiability”.
Whatever people’s opinion on AI are or are not. This logic should wholly be rejected in every instance it is brought forth. It is literally the antithesis of rational thought.
no, as someone whose entire job is code reviewing ai slop you LITERALLY know at first sight just by looking at it what is written by an LLM and what is written by a real person.
Sure, but that’s not what this is about. This isn’t just banning AI-written code, it’s banning AI-assisted code. If you even use a Google Gemini “AI-summary” at the top of your search results for something simple like the name of a function, then your code is AI-assisted.
There’s no way anyone can detect that. And banning it is silly.
But the point is, imho, that if nobody can tell if it’s AI-assisted, then who cares? This is more for them to fire a warning shot that you’d better be sure your AI-assisted code is good enough to pass, or they can reject or and, potentially, ban you without notice.
as someone who has a similar job, i don’t think it’s so obvious. there’s a lot of middle ground between an AI slop PR and artisanal, hand-crafted code. if i use a library or algorithm or pattern suggested by ChatGPT or use Copilot to autocomplete a simple function or have Claude generate test cases, that’s all “AI assisted”.
Yeah. But this guy says we can’t. I wonder what metric they use to assert “the sky is blue” is a true statement.
Probably needs to XP a bit…