4 ms·
We're not. At ardour.org we've banned any and all LLM-generated code (defined as code that was either acknowledged to be LLM-generated or makes us feel that it
by PaulDavisThe1st 11mo ago
We're not. At ardour.org we've banned any and all LLM-generated code (defined as code that was either acknowledged to be LLM-generated or makes us feel that it was).
This is based on continual (though occasional) experiments asking various LLMs for solutions to actual known problems with our code, and utter despair at the deluge of shit that it produces (which you wouldn't recognize as shit unless you knew our existing codebase well). 2 weeks ago, there was the claim that our code makes extensive use of boost::intrusive_ptr<> ... in 300k lines of C++, there isn't a single use of this type, other than in an experimental branch from 6-7 years ago.
So we just say no.
- jstummbillig 11mo agoHow do you review the no?
- PaulDavisThe1st 11mo agoWe don't review it, we just say it.
- jstummbillig 11mo agoSo it's not something you thought about.
- PaulDavisThe1st 11mo agoWe were open to it, but the actual results of LLM code generation are so uniformly poor that until there's substantive evidence of a change on that front, we're not willing to review on a case by case basis.
- jstummbillig 11mo agoAh, I meant review the policy, not the cases.
- PaulDavisThe1st 11mo agoWe will review the policy when one of the core developers interacts with an LLM regarding a real coding problem in our application and gets back something that isn't drivel.
- prayerie 11mo agoThis is such a breath of fresh air reading something like this on this website. I thought I was going insane.
- doug_durham 11mo agoUse the tools that work for you. If your customers are happy and you are hitting your deadlines then there is no problem. No one is insisting that you do otherwise.