3 ms·
I don't know, it is a useful signal that the person did not think deeply about their code changes, and should be treated as such.
by aleda145 4mo ago
I don't know, it is a useful signal that the person did not think deeply about their code changes, and should be treated as such.
- eastbound 4mo agoWorking alone, I often look at the Git Blame and wonder “Wait, did I write that or did AI write that?”
- Galanwe 4mo agoReminds me of 25 years ago, the default BitchX config on most distributions contained something that would crash the client with a message "I did not read the configuration". If someone remembers what it was actually, that would really bring back memories
- giancarlostoro 4mo agoI'm too lame to read BitchX.doc https://www.irchelp.org/clients/unix/bitchx.html https://www.irchelp.org/clients/unix/bitchx.html
- bergheim 4mo agoSame with eggdrop. Speaking of; why the names?
- conradludgate 4mo agoIt's a signal, and probably a high success signal in open source slop discovery, but it's more of a correlation than a causation. I've seen lots of changes that bear the co-authored tag that have had a lot of thought behind the code changes.
- bluGill 4mo agoYou are responsible, it doesn't matter if a LLM wrote it. Sometimes someone will touch my code and I got wish git blame still had my name. (That is they fixed the spelling of some variables - I'm a bad speller but know the codes are better)
- ok_dad 4mo agoThat’s why I don’t add it because I take the fucking time to read the clankers output and fix that shit. I use the ai as a tool, it helps me as an adhd autistic person to get things done. I still care about quality as much as before!!! I’m so tired of bad actors fucking things up for the rest of us who do things right.