• FishFace@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 hours ago

    The article is one angry person’s rant and you are further going beyond what it actually says.

    • auzy1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Yeah. Pretty much.

      The actual policy is that it all gets reviewed by a human I think when I was looking into it.

      The bots are likely most useful to reject obviously bad patches which have obvious bugs or don’t follow guidelines. And identifying bad code is something which AI tends to be good at.

      In our code at work, we use weakly typed languages which aren’t strict and on those it tends to be even better. We catch things like table keys that are typed wrong, etc. On C, things like pointers it probably does a good job with identifying as wrong

      If it passes AI code review it still gets checked by human for things that are wrong and needs fixing. But if it fails, it probably needs fixing regardless.

      • Ghoelian@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 hours ago

        A good language server / ide will also complain about incorrect types. That specific example is a deterministic process, no llm is required for it at all.

        • auzy1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 hours ago

          We do use one. But, in practice, they can’t catch a lot of things which AI will

          At least in our case too based on what’s available, it also can’t check stuff like coding style well (but our development relies on that less).

          Some might though