6 ms·
oh wow, an LLM-based company with an article that claims AI is oddly not as bad when it comes to generating gobbledegook as everyday empirical evidence should s
by bogzz 10mo ago
oh wow, an LLM-based company with an article that claims AI is oddly not as bad when it comes to generating gobbledegook as everyday empirical evidence should suggest
- jjmarr 10mo agoCoderabbit is an LLM code review company so their incentives are the opposite. AI is terrible and you need more AI to review it. fwiw, I agree. LLM-powered code review is a lifesaver. I don't use Coderabbit but all of my PRs go through Copilot before another human looks at it. It's almost always right.
- bpicolo 10mo agoTheir incentives are perfectly aligned - you’re making more bugs, surely you need some AI code review to help prevent that. It’s literally right at the end of their recommendations list in the article
- jjmarr 10mo agoThe original comment said: > an article that claims AI is oddly not as bad when it comes to generating gobbledegook Ironically, Coderabbit wants you to believe AI is worse at generating gobbledegook.
- GoatInGrey 10mo agoMake the gobbledygook from your gobbledygook generator better with our proprietary gobbledygook generator. I'm obviously taking the piss here, but the irony is amusing.
- jjmarr 10mo agoIt sounds stupid but it works. I've seen it. I put Copilot on AI-generated slop PRs and hit refresh until it stops commenting. It's great seeing it take out all the dead code.
- elktown 10mo agoYou're comment history suggests a pro-AI bias on par with AI companies. I don't understand it. It seems like critical thinking, nuance, and just basic caution have been turned off like a light-switch for far too many people.
- naasking 10mo agoOur industry never exhibited an abundance of caution, but if you have trouble understanding the value of AI here, consider that you are akin to an assembly language programmer in the 1970s or 80s who couldn't understand why people are so gung-ho about these compilers that just output worse code than they could write by hand. In retrospect, compilers only got better and better, and familiarity with programming languages and compilation toolchains became a valuable productivity skill and the market for assembly language programming either stagnated, or shrank. Doesn't it seem plausible to you that, whatever the ratio of bugs in AI-generated code today, that bug count is only going to really go down? Doesn't it then seem reasonable to say that programmers should start familiarizing themselves with these new tools, where the pitfalls are and how to avoid them?
- bogzz 10mo agocompilers aren't probabilistic models though
- mwigdahl 10mo agoTrue. The question is whether that's relevant to the trajectory described or not.
- naasking 10mo agoSuccessful compiler optimizations are probabilistic though, from the programmer's point of view. LLMs are internally deterministic too.
- miningape 10mo agoWhat? Do you even know how compilers work?
- smb06 10mo agoDo you use Copilot for coding and then also Copilot for reviewing? Or are you using some other coding agent and Copilot only for PR reviews?
- jjmarr 10mo agoI do not use Copilot for coding. I use other assistants now. Copilot code review is amazing. I use it all the time.