←back to thread

Some things to expect in 2025

(lwn.net)
258 points signa11 | 2 comments | 16 Jan 25 22:55 UTC | HN request time: 0.423s | source
Show context
kirubakaran ◴[17 Jan 25 00:45 UTC] No.42732804[source]▶
> A major project will discover that it has merged a lot of AI-generated code

My friend works at a well-known tech company in San Francisco. He was reviewing his junior team member's pull request. When asked what a chunk of code did, the team member matter-of-factly replied "I don't know, chatgpt wrote that"

replies(16): >>42733064 #>>42733126 #>>42733357 #>>42733510 #>>42733737 #>>42733790 #>>42734461 #>>42734543 #>>42735030 #>>42735130 #>>42735456 #>>42735525 #>>42735773 #>>42736703 #>>42736792 #>>42737483 #
DowsingSpoon ◴[17 Jan 25 03:19 UTC] No.42733737[source]▶
I am fairly certain that if someone did that where I work then security would be escorting them off the property within the hour. This is NOT Okay.
replies(5): >>42733887 #>>42733897 #>>42734054 #>>42734331 #>>42734746 #
bitmasher9 ◴[17 Jan 25 03:54 UTC] No.42733897[source]▶
Where I work we are actively encouraged to use more AI tools while coding, to the point where my direct supervisor asked why my team’s usage statistics were lower than company average.
replies(1): >>42733926 #
dehrmann ◴[17 Jan 25 04:00 UTC] No.42733926[source]▶
It's not necessarily the use of AI tools (though the license parts are an issue), is that someone submitted code for review without knowing how it works.
replies(3): >>42733954 #>>42734138 #>>42735136 #
xiasongh ◴[17 Jan 25 04:37 UTC] No.42734138[source]▶
Didn't people already do that before, copy and pasting code off stack overflow? I don't like it either but this issue has always existed, but perhaps it is more common now
replies(3): >>42734276 #>>42734384 #>>42734669 #
1. noisy_boy ◴[17 Jan 25 06:27 UTC] No.42734669[source]▶
Now there is even lesser excuse for not knowing what it does, because the same chatGPT that gave you the code, can explain it too. That wasn't a luxury available in copy/paste-from-StackOverflow days (though explanations with varying degrees of depth were available there too).
replies(1): >>42735026 #
2. ascorbic ◴[17 Jan 25 07:43 UTC] No.42735026[source]▶
Yes, and I think the mistakes that LLMs commonly make are less problematic than Stack Overflow. LLMs seem to most often either hallucinate APIs, or use outdated ones. They're easier to detect when they just don't work. They're not perfect, but seem less inclined to generate the bad practices and security holes that are the bread and butter of Stack Overflow. In fact they're pretty good at identifying those sort of problems in existing code.