I didn't make a decision on the tradeoff, the LLVM community did. I also disclosed it in the PR. I also try to mitigate the code review burden by doing as much review as possible on my end & flagging what I don't understand.

If your project has a policy against AI usage I won't submit AI-generated code because I respect your decision.

▲

h4ny 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> I didn't make a decision on the tradeoff, the LLVM community did. I also disclosed it in the PR.

That's not what the GP mean. Just because a community doesn't disallow something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

> I also try to mitigate the code review burden by doing as much review as possible on my end

That's great but...

> & flagging what I don't understand.

It's absurd to me that people should commit code they don't understand. That is the problem. Just because you are allowed to commit AI-generated/assisted code does not mean that you should commit code that you don't understand.

The overhead to others of committing code that you don't understand then ask someone to review is a lot higher than asking someone for directions first so you can understand the problem and code you write.

> If your project has a policy against AI usage I won't submit AI-generated code because I respect your decision.

That's just not the point.

▲

overfeed 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> It's absurd to me that people should commit code they don't understand

The industrywide tsunami of tech debt arising from AI detritus[1] will be interesting to watch. Tech leadership is currently drunk on improved productivity metrics (via lines of code or number of PRs), but I bet velocity will slow down, and products be more brittle due to extraneous AI-generated, with a lag, so it won't be immediately apparent. Only teams with rigorous reviews will fare well in the long term, but may be punished in the short term for "not being as productive" as others.

1. From personal observation: when I'm in a hurry, I accept code that does more than is necessary to meet the requirements, or is merely not succinct. Where as pre-AI, less code would be merged with a "TBD" tacked on

	▲	jjmarr a day ago \| parent [-]
		I agree with more review. The reason I wrote the PR is because AI keeps using `int` in my codebase when modern coding guidelines suggest `size_t`, `uint32_t`, or something else modern.

▲

huflungdung 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

▲

Phelinofist 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Where did you disclose it?

▲

Sayrus 2 days ago | parent [-]

Only after getting reviews so it is hidden by default: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/146970#issuecommen...

▲

optionalsquid a day ago | parent [-]

Disclosing that you used AI three days after making the PR, after 4 people had already commented on your code, doesn't sit right with me. That's the kind of thing that should be disclosed in the original PR message. Especially so if you are not confident in the generated code

▲

anon22981 a day ago | parent [-]

Sounds like a junior vibe coder with no understanding of software development trying to boost their CV. Or at least I hope that’s the case.

	▲	jjmarr a day ago \| parent [-]
		I graduated literally 3 months ago so that's my skill level. I also have no idea what the social norms are for AI. I posted the comment after a friend on Discord said I should disclose my use of AI. The underlying purpose of the PR is ironically because Cline and Copilot keep trying to use `int` when modern C++ coding standards suggest `size_t` (or something similar).