4 ms·
> Of course, it’s unclear how exactly Microsoft and Google are measuring what’s AI-generated versus not, so these figures are best taken with a grain of salt.
by techpineapple 1y ago
> Of course, it’s unclear how exactly Microsoft and Google are measuring what’s AI-generated versus not, so these figures are best taken with a grain of salt.
This does seem to me to be the key question, is anyone transparent about this? If not, why not?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- cratermoon 1y agoWhy not? They want companies to buy their AI enabled slop.
- techpineapple 1y agoWouldn’t being transparent with how effective it was at writing code be a good sales tool?
- sublinear 1y agoYes, and that's exactly why they're not transparent about it.
- rsynnott 1y agoOnly if it's effective at writing code, which it of course is not. Any time you see companies refusing to even vaguely define what metrics like this mean (or, for that matter, using non-standard metrics, like disclosing weekly active users but not monthly), it's generally a very strong signal that they're not interested in being transparent because the truth is, ah, not what they would like it to be.
- hnav 1y agoThe perception of having fallen behind in AI adversely impacts your stock price, the amount of capital you can marshal to actually compete in AI. What I think is actually happening industry-wide is that any sort of "intelligence" in software is slowly being rebranded as AI.