Comment on NetBSD bans all commits of AI-generated code

omgitsaheadcrab@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

• Terces@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  How do they know that you wrote it yourself and didn’t just steal it?

  This is a rule to protect themselves. If there is ever a case around this, they can push the blame to the person that committed the code for breaking that rule.

  source

  • sirico@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    This is the only reason rules exist, not to stop people doing a thing but to be able to enforce or defect responsibility when they do.

    source

    • ripcord@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I mean, generally rules at least are to strongly discourage people from doing a thing, or to lead to things that WOULD prevent people from doing a thing.

      A purely conceptual rule by itself would not magically stop someone from doing a thing, but that’s kind of a weird way to think about it.

      source
• mannycalavera@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  They’ll use AI to detect it… obviously. ☺️

  source
• Zos_Kia@lemmynsfw.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  I’m saddened to use this phrase but it is literally virtue signalling. They have no way of knowing lmao

  source

  • best_username_ever@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    It’s actually simple to detect: if the code sucks or is written by a bad programmer, and the docstrings are perfect, it’s AI. I’ve seen this more than once and it never fails.

    source

    • Zos_Kia@lemmynsfw.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I’m confused, do people really use copilot to write the whole thing and ship it without re reading?

      source

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        I literally did an interview that went like this:

        1. Applicant used copilot to generate nontrivial amounts of the code
        2. Copilot generated the wrong code for a key part of the algorithm; applicant didn’t notice
        3. We pointed it out, they fixed it
        4. They had to refactor the code a bit, and ended up making the same exact mistake again
        5. We pointed out the error again…

        And that’s in an interview, where you should be extra careful to make a good impression…

        source
      • neclimdul@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Not specific to AI but someone flat out told me they didn’t even run the code to see it work. They didn’t understand why I would or expect that before accepting code. This was someone submitting code to a widely deployed open source project.

        So, I would expect the answer is yes or very soon to be yes.

        source
      • best_username_ever@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Around me, most beginners who use that don’t have the skills to understand or even test what they get. They don’t want to learn I guess, ChatGPT is easier.

        I recently suspected a new guy was using ChatGPT because everything seemed perfect (grammar, code formatting, classes made with design patterns, etc.) so I did some pair programming with him and asked if we could debug his simple application. He didn’t know where the debug button was.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      So your results are biased, because you're not going to see the decent programmers who are just using it to take mundane tasks off their back while staying in control of the logic. You're only ever going to catch the noobs.

      source

      • best_username_ever@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        You’re only ever going to catch the noobs.

        That’s the fucking point. Juniors must learn, not copy paste random stuff. I don’t care what seniors do.

        source
  • Venator@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    It's also probably to make things slightly simpler from a legal perspective.

    source

    • Zos_Kia@lemmynsfw.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      That makes sense yes

      source
• SMillerNL@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Are they long, super verbose and often incorrect?

  source
• Xantar@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Magic, I guess ?

  source