you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -3 points 8 hours ago (8 children)

The article is literally about how they have so much AI slop that the code is no longer reviewed by people it’s reviewed by a Meta chatbot…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 8 hours ago* (3 children)

    Can you post the quote where it says that it's untested and it goes straight to master

    I'm lost.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (2 children)

    Also, looking through the authors articles, frankly, the list looks like low quality human slop.

    https://davidgerard.co.uk/other.html

    And I can't find any evidence they're actually involved with any development projects either. Literally ANY projects including stupid little pet ones every dev has

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 hours ago (1 child)

    I mean, having pet projects doesn't require being "involved" with one nor requires making anything public...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

    Except I can't see any references to this guy getting involved with any projects at all at a technical level.

    If you check his articles, he's definitely targeting a specific crowd based on what I can see too.

    Saying "there is an AI bot that identifies if code is obviously bad" doesn't really make an exciting story though...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

    The article is one angry person's rant and you are further going beyond what it actually says.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 hours ago* (2 children)

    Yeah. Pretty much.

    The actual policy is that it all gets reviewed by a human I think when I was looking into it.

    The bots are likely most useful to reject obviously bad patches which have obvious bugs or don't follow guidelines. And identifying bad code is something which AI tends to be good at.

    In our code at work, we use weakly typed languages which aren't strict and on those it tends to be even better. We catch things like table keys that are typed wrong, etc. On C, things like pointers it probably does a good job with identifying as wrong

    If it passes AI code review it still gets checked by human for things that are wrong and needs fixing. But if it fails, it probably needs fixing regardless.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 hours ago (1 child)

    A good language server / ide will also complain about incorrect types. That specific example is a deterministic process, no llm is required for it at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 6 hours ago*

    We do use one. But, in practice, they can't catch a lot of things which AI will

    At least in our case too based on what's available, it also can't check stuff like coding style well (but our development relies on that less).

    Some might though

  • source
  • parent