do you have a link to the breakdown by division ?

I can see general statements but nothing with breakdowns.

If you're stuck at review you aren't seeing 10x development, you're seeing 10x code generation.

This is especially important because without the review/test/deploy part of the pipeline you aren't actually seeing any progress towards business goals.

Once you do get these parts sorted, you can then look at what multiplier you're seeing.

That's not to say there isn't an improvement in your workflow, just that you can't say with any certainty what kind of improvement without measuring the end to end.

It might turn out that the rest of the pipeline is way easier , in which case your multiplier will be higher, it might also be much harder, in which case the multiplier will be lower.

I'm not taking shots, i mean it seriously, especially if you need to report any of this to the rest of the business.

edit : In addition, if it turns out that review is going to be a bottleneck you can get extra resource pointed in that direction which will benefit the workflow overall.

another edit: i would consider correctly managing the expectations of those you report to as a vital skill.

Indeed, no scientific studies could ever benefit from a 40% increase in data from test subjects.

Not to mention they aren't even in the same environmental conditions, or doing the same activities, the data would be completely different (aside from the common baseline of space stuff) and therefore useless for comparison purposes.

I'm not sure why anyone would bother.

Look, i get why you might think it's unnecessary, i don't care enough to have an my own opinion on it's cost/benefit analysis.

All i was saying is that reasons do exist.

Well shit, my bad, i somehow got the Guardian and the daily mail mixed up.

I still don't think it's editorial quality is great, but it's not a tabloid by any stretch.

~~The guardian is a tabloid rag with bigger words.~~

Easy answer is , they don't

Though that's just the one admitting to it.

A lightly more nuanced answer is , it probably depends, there's likely to be some inference made between age ranges but my guess is that it'd be sub-par given that it sometimes struggles with reproducing images it has a tonne of actual data for.

TL;DR;

You asked why it mattered if it's LLM generated or not, i provided examples where it does matter, nothing you've said in your reply seems to refute that so I'll just assume we've agreed on this point.

The rest of this reply is just me replying to your additional arguments.

Ok, so you’re suggesting that people are submitting kernel patches that somehow modify the architecture of the kernel/it’s components, that the new architecture is very complex and hard to analyze, that the those architectural changes are part of roadmap and are not rejected right away and that those big, complex architectural level patches are submitted with high frequency. Somehow I doubt all of it.

I mean, i didn't say any of that but feel free to doubt a position you just made up.

I think the slop patches are small fixes suggested by some AI code analysis tools.

There's no reason to believe that LLM usage is limited to small patches.

that architectural and complex changes are part of well defined roadmap and don’t come out of nowhere and that code that doesn’t follow conventions is easily spotted and rejected.

In a well maintained project, sure, ish, but let's just say you're right about the plan/roadmap phase.

The spotting and rejection you mentioned are now significantly more time and resource consuming for the reasons i stated in the previous reply.

Also when i used the word architecturally i was referring to the logical domain of the patch and the things it interacts with, i wasn't implying that LLM's would get a chance at re-architecting an entire project as large as the Linux kernel.

At least i'd hope not.

The linked article talks only about marking the code as AI generated (IMHO useless but harmless) and increasing volume of AI slop patches.

I'm not sure of the usefulness of this kind of marking in practice, but i can tell you a way in which it might be useful.

The way you need to go about evaluating LLM generated code vs human code can be different.

And before you get on your high horse I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing a good job reviewing in general, of course we should.

Review and testing resources are limited in most practical settings, we should be focusing on best utilising that resource in the most efficient manner possible.

There are tools specifically geared towards evaluating LLM generated code for specific mistakes, this marking would enable a more efficient usage/allocation of review resources over and above the baseline code-quality tests.

The idea that maintainers spend time analyzing complex LLM generated code submitted by random amateurs looking for possible architectural bugs sounds like a fantasy to me

Which is clear from your answers, if you don't understand how pull request review works in practice you're going to struggle to make a coherent argument that requires that understanding.

To answer the statement directly, there's sometimes no efficient way to tell which patches are from amateurs, even without LLM's.

The issue isn't even just relegated to amateurs, i would like to assume a competent dev of any skill level wouldn't be submitting patches they don't understand but that's just not always the case.

and again, think architecture with a 'little a' rather than a 'big A'.

Logical flow and domain understanding in a relatively limited scope, rather than system-wide structural change.

The difference between tactics and strategy.

Are you judging the motivation purely based on the effects? Otherwise, how are you working out what goes on inside people’s heads?

A combination of the effects, the prior actions, reactions and consequences of the subject and others in similar categories/contexts (to the extent i actually know/pay attention).

I don't know of another way of performing predictive analysis.

Also that didn't answer the question.

I think given that we all agree that there are voters who think this will protect children makes it crazy to think that politicians must somehow know better. It is well-accepted online that politicians are out-of-touch when it comes to technology, so it’s not like they understand the subject of this article.

I'm genuinely not sure what you are saying here, but i'll go line by line, tell me if I'm reading it incorrectly.

I think given that we all agree that there are voters who think this will protect children makes it crazy to think that politicians must somehow know better.

I don't know what this means, there are voters who genuinely believe this, yes, i think i follow that bit.

I'm not sure what you think is crazy here (i'm not disagreeing, i just don't understand) , do you mean to say the politicians do or don't know better ?

It is well-accepted online that politicians are out-of-touch when it comes to technology, so it’s not like they understand the subject of this article.

This i agree with, i can also anecdotally add first hand experience of the consequences of such lack of understanding.

Not sure how it ties in to the other sentence though.

Ethics and morality aside.

Yes, they count, the process of making and continuing to update the underlying LLM is also what drains the lakes, they are all made on pirated info (all the big ones for sure, I've not heard of a widely available, usable model trained 100% on legally obtained data, but I suppose it could exist).

that's a dictionary definition , top tier cherry picking though, congrats.

The differences here are that ORM and web frameworks weren't actively making the job harder and the sheer surface area of the problem.

If you fuck up with a framework or an ORM, it generally just fails to work, the magic internals might not be super helpful with their error messages, but such is the nature of the tradeoffs.

If you fuck up with an LLM you get something that generally compiles and looks like it should work, that's much more of a problem for both you and anyone who then needs to go trawling through, looking for the issues.

That's....optimistic.

I feel like you're expecting a rational discourse with someone who so far has gone with "BaBy MurDerErS" and "YEah,bUt SciEnCe is On My sIDe" ( without actually stating how ).

They aren't addressing unwanted pregnancies, medical complication, sexual assault and things outside their carefully crafted headcannon, on purpose.

You're gonna get handwaving at best, probably some strawman example, righteous indignation with no explained basis perhaps a personal attack.

I would not at all be surprised if they were bordering on the belief that victims of sexual assault can just "decide" to not get pregnant.

That's the level of critical thinking you're working with here, i'd manage my expectations if i were you.

That "rape aside" is doing a lot of heavy lifitng there and conveniently sweeps away the need to actually address anything that isn't the "had sex, your fault" narrative you seem to be espousing here.

Especially given that there is little to no effort being given to exemptions of any kind.

Nobody is denying that sex is how babies are (usually) made, i mean apart from the "this book is the literal truth" christians i suppose.

or you're trolling, in which case, congratulations...i guess.