They got to him

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    The code still undergoes the exact same code review as before.

    That’s not good enough, because it is well documented that AI often make mistakes and absolutely needs to undergo way stricter review.
    It is also well documented that although you can achieve some results quickly, AI code also quickly becomes impossible to maintain.

    If nobody understands the code, as it seems was the case here, and it is introduced anyway, the kernel is doomed to deteriorate.

    My wife has already noticed deteriorating quality in Debian, with system hangs after they loosened the requirements for AI code. The quality of Debian now is lower than it has been in a decade!

    Maybe you need to watch something like this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ARF2KcDgc

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        Lol. That guy banned me from his community

        Maybe because you are making stupid ignorant comments.

        • auzy1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          Or maybe his blog post falls apart completely by simply pointing out that AI isn’t approving code, code doesn’t go straight to main, and all code is manually code reviewed by human.

          And his blog is pages of slop.

          • Buffalox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 hours ago

            AI isn’t approving code

            You really seem to believe that’s a good point, but it isn’t.
            It is an extremely well documented fact that critical/independent thinking declines with use of AI, and you apparently have zero understanding of that fact.

            • auzy1@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 hours ago

              Did you even read that 1 study you’re repeating, or just click the link

              If you read the study, they ran the tests over 13 mins only. And, they didn’t keep retesting to see if results changed over time either. If that ran the test over an hour, both results may have ended up at similar levels (we don’t know because it only tested over a short time)

              You need to learn to stop exaggerating or actually read crap instead of just the headline lol

              I know it’s the same study we both (or presumably just myself) read, because it was the only one. I wouldn’t call that “extremely well” anything

            • auzy1@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 hours ago

              You seem to believe that’s a great response. At this point, you’re just arguing (which seems to be most of your Lemmy history).

              If you want to argue that a journalist with a slop blog and no evidence of being a developer anywhere is credible, that’s up to you.

              All I see is obviously bad journalism from a guy who wants attention…