3 ms·

> this is just replacing one silly measure with another > Not to say anything of your research The second statement isn't true just because you want it to be

by zemo 3y ago

> this is just replacing one silly measure with another > Not to say anything of your research The second statement isn't true just because you want it to be true. The first statement renders it untrue. > I'd rather us start grading developers based on the outcomes of software. For instance, ... errors generated by a service yeah you should click through and read the whitepaper and not just the summary. The authors talk about similar ideas. For example, from the paper: > The more Churn becomes commonplace, the greater the risk of mistakes being deployed to production. If the current pattern continues into 2024, more than 7% of all code changes will be reverted within two weeks, double the rate of 2021. Based on this data, we expect to see an increase in Google DORA's "Change Failure Rate" when the “2024 State of Devops” report is released later in the year, contingent on that research using data from AI-assisted developers in 2023. The authors are describing one measurable signal while openly expressing interest in the topics you're mentioning. The thing is: what's in this paper is a leading indicator, while what you're talking about is a lagging indicator. There's not really a clear hypothesis as to why, for example, increased code churn would reduce the number of production incidents, the mean time to resolution of dealing with incidents, etc.

oooyay 3y ago
Thankfully in life no third person gets to dictate what I mean by my own words. There's plenty of good research that comes from studying the silly things, science is filled with things that even an average person would say "duh" or "don't do that". That doesn't make them meaningless. If you disagree that's cool, but I still mean what I said exactly how I said it. > yeah you should click through and read the whitepaper and not just the summary. The authors talk about similar ideas Ah, this whitepaper that's gated behind supplying my business email address?: https://www.gitclear.com/coding_on_copilot_data_shows_ais_downward_pressure_on_code_quality https://www.gitclear.com/coding_on_copilot_data_shows_ais_do... I read the article that was linked, which is generally what's expected of me on HN. > The authors are describing one measurable signal... I'm aware of the research around this topic, it's something I like reading about and I've read a lot of takes both academic and colloquial. That may be why I put that idea into words. Maybe, just maybe, in our future interactions you can avoid being so unnecessarily hostile?

by zemo 3y ago

oooyay 3y ago

Thankfully in life no third person gets to dictate what I mean by my own words. There's plenty of good research that comes from studying the silly things, science is filled with things that even an average person would say "duh" or "don't do that". That doesn't make them meaningless. If you disagree that's cool, but I still mean what I said exactly how I said it. > yeah you should click through and read the whitepaper and not just the summary. The authors talk about similar ideas Ah, this whitepaper that's gated behind supplying my business email address?: https://www.gitclear.com/coding_on_copilot_data_shows_ais_downward_pressure_on_code_quality https://www.gitclear.com/coding_on_copilot_data_shows_ais_do... I read the article that was linked, which is generally what's expected of me on HN. > The authors are describing one measurable signal... I'm aware of the research around this topic, it's something I like reading about and I've read a lot of takes both academic and colloquial. That may be why I put that idea into words. Maybe, just maybe, in our future interactions you can avoid being so unnecessarily hostile?