256
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2026
256 points (92.1% liked)
Fuck AI
8666 readers
1434 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
Rules:
- Relevant posts only.
- No bigotry.
- This isn't a place to talk about the cons and (supposed) pros of AI for different use cases. This is /c/fuck_ai .
- Especially no AI advocacy.
- Don't make any posts that are just AI content with no context unless the point of your post is obvious from content. (Don't just post slop advertisements or slop political cartoons. At least make your point about it clear so we know you aren't just trolling.)
- Venting is part of the purpose of this community, but don't aim frustration or accusations at other users.
- These rules are a living document that may change in the future.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The context of the quote is not code generation, it is an AI-based code review tool which caught real issues which made it past human review. He's not arguing for lowering the code quality standards, he's acknowledging that in the past year, AI-based code review tools have started to provide real value.
He has vibe-coded at least one non-kernel hobby project, though.
This is one scenario where the GenAI has been pretty useful, to a point.
It can help someone review code. It has a lot of false positives, but it does occasionally catch something, and I can forgive the false positives, even if they are super annoying and time consuming, so long as it is catching something on occasion.
In open source, a problem is so many people in your community now want to 'help' by using their AI subscriptions to review the existing code and then spam the project with their 'findings' because they don't understand well enough to double check the AI. This greatly amplifies the false positive problem with mind numbing volume of dupes.
My employer rolled out an AI-based bot which commented on code reviews. It was absolute garbage, and every single comment I ever saw it make was a false positive. Disproving the false positives was a huge waste of time. I hated it with a passion.
Recently it was upgraded with a modern model. Now I've only ever seen it give legitimate feedback. It's like night and day. Sometimes the feedback is overly pedantic, and more often than not suggesting an improvement slated for later, but still legitimate feedback with an appropriate tone for the severity.
I believe recent sentiment from the curl project (who previously complained about drowning in slop PRs), is that their AI-based pull requests have also improved significantly.
I'm still not a fan of AI-generated code, since I mostly think in terms of code and AI fucks up the process for me, but I have to acknowledge that quality of output has improved greatly the past year or so.