4 ms·
The quality argument against LLM-generated code has always seemed weak to me. Maintainers already review patches because humans routinely submit bad code. The r
by veunes 7mo ago
The quality argument against LLM-generated code has always seemed weak to me. Maintainers already review patches because humans routinely submit bad code. The review process is the filter.
- layer8 7mo agoBad human code is usually fairly obvious, bad LLM code often less so, because it’s trained to produce superficially sensible-looking code. Hence reviewing it requires higher alertness and is more work. The other problem is that LLMs allow a human to submit much larger amounts of code to be reviewed than if they had to write the code themselves.
- a96 7mo agoBut bad human submissions are expensive to send and expensive to receive. LLM submissions are cheap to send and expensive to receive. This creates a spam (slop) problem, just like in other contexts.