You’d be surprised how much of the internet works just fine without javascript enabled. Combined with an adblocker, it’s also often a better experience on some ad-infested news sites where ublock alone just doesn’t cut it.
You don’t have to employ a javascript whitelist if you don’t want to. I do and appreciate OP because of it.
Site requires javascript so I appreciate OP. If that doesn’t bother you, nothing’s stopping you from clicking the article.
page 9’s wording does state that it is maintainer-estimated, and specifies the terms “low-quality” and “slop” as the qualifier for the 25% figure
I’m not seeing it. This is the sole relevant statement on pg 9 where they simply define AI slop in a general way that avoids tying it in with their measurements:
“AI slop” are low quality AI-generated contributions that are unlikely to be worth the review time they demand.
In addition to the explicit ‘and/or general AI use’ statement, there are several red flags here that make me think this is a low quality study to be taken with salt. Or maybe I’m cynical and using the term ‘slop’ to push a research study is both unusual and suspect.
you’ll see that “slop” in the survey does not refer to AI-driven PRs in general, but to specifically low-quality AI-generated PRs.
This part is actually unclear. The question posed to survey participants that allowed researchers to determine a PR was “AI slop” is left out of the report. And this line under the chart showing “25% slop etc.” is troubling:
Average estimated percentage of incoming PRs that are low-quality and/or AI-generated
How this particular question was framed is of critical importance here and without it, it’s easy to assume that all reported AI use was broadly categorized as “slop”
Sadly I could not find a way to access the full list of questions used in the survey to confirm this.
tiring
Hate to tell you this but that’s probably a core feature here.
Someone was trying to argue here that code is less about what it actually does and more about the feelings that drove them (as distinct from thought processes or motivating logic behind them) and since AI betrays this, must AI disclosure blah blah!!!
Once arguments have entered the realm of absurdity and legitimate discourse is overshadowed by bad faith discussions of shifting goalposts and gish gallops, the only question that remains is who stands to gain the most from the english speaking world being slow to adopt AI.
Once reasonable heads have left the room and decline to discuss any topic on AI (because they expect the toxic environment devoid of reason), only agenda driven collectives and a handful of their useful idiots will steer future discourse.
Because rules have to be enforced, and investing time and effort into detecting and punishing rule-breakers would be a pointless endeavor when, disclosure/AI or not, all code has to be reviewed anyway.
It harms the environment, it harms actual developers, it introduces all sorts of legal issues where copyright is only one of them, it locks you in to a vendor, it makes you dependent of giant tech companies that steal your data and want to monetize your work.
Could you elaborate on this a little? I came here as I’m not very knowledgable when it comes to AI and am genuinely curious. Sadly you’re the only person I’ve seen so far that has made coherent (even if broad) arguments against AI.
I know the environment argument is probably the enormous power demand of AI, and as far as the copyright thing goes, I’ve seen first hand how people abuse voice actors’ livelihoods with shitty imitations of their voices that are also completely devoid of anything resembling skill. But how does AI harm developers, lock you in to a specific vendor or make you dependant on giant tech companies?
They are Anti-AI but Linux kernel lead developer Linus Torvalds took a position of ‘The cat (AI) is out of the bag and not going back in, so it’s better to adapt than ban AI’ much to their chagrin.
‘karma’ = ‘you deserve this’ cue simpsons’ nelson laugh