you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 43 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Yeah, but then article says that "good" ones still need reams of human work to make them acceptable.

Article is propaganda.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Greg says they're mostly small bug fixes and that the current maintainers can handle it, not sure where you're getting the "reams" bit from

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Says in the article that they arent good to go, needing code review, code cleanup, comment and documentation cleanup, etc

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 27 points 7 months ago

    Yeah I mean, the goal is not to replace code maintainers, only to assist them in their work. Greg in general seems optimistic about it:

    "I did a really stupid prompt," he recounted. "I said, 'Give me this,' and it spit out 60: 'Here's 60 problems I found, and here's the fixes for them.' About one-third were wrong, but they still pointed out a relatively real problem, and two-thirds of the patches were right." Mind you, those working patches still needed human cleanup, better changelogs, and integration work, but they were far from useless. "The tools are good," he said. "We can't ignore this stuff. It's coming up, and it's getting better."

  • source
  • parent