Is there any measurable difference in quality between the two, or are you just going on "vibes"? Is there a correlation between the quality of the manually written code and AI generated code driven by the same dev?

Such crude takes only cause unnecessary friction. If you have a black box that spits out code, and you are unable to distinguish the quality between a top tier dev and an AI inside the black box, then the distinction is unnecessary. Most of the code on the internet is already a black box to you. What percentage of code running on your machines have you vetted by who wrote it and code quality?

AI coding isn't going anywhere and will likely end up generating most code going forward so instead of rejecting it outright or arbitrarily categorizing it we need to focus on solid quantitative and qualitative measures of code and functionality regardless of who wrote it.

▲

queoahfh 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Didn't the initial rewrite of Bun into Rust have an ocean of "unsafe" in it, and wasn't it entirely dysfunctional?

	▲	Leynos 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, that was the point. It made unsafe behaviour visible in a way that could be addressed. I hadn't heard any reports of it being dysfunctional.

▲

lenkite 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Is there a correlation between the quality of the manually written code and AI generated code driven by the same dev?

Aren't you making a strawman argument ? AFAIK this project is not made by an official PostgreSQL core developer, so the entire premise of your argument is invalid.

	▲	colordrops 44 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I phrased that improperly which made you and probably others misunderstand. What I meant is, is the quality of AI generated code correlated with the developer? The answer is yes, a bad dev will absolutely produce worse code using AI than a good developer - the point being that there isn't just one level of quality of code coming out of AI, even with the same model and harness.

▲

dwedge 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Is there a correlation between the quality of the manually written code and AI generated code driven by the same dev?

If the dev doesn't vet the code, it doesn't matter how good quality a dev they would be if they wrote the code - they didn't. Sure, the dev would probably drive the initial architecture discussion better and some people are using AI in small batches with tests and vetting everything, but some previously great devs are throwing in PRs that touch hundreds of files at once with one commit.

A lot of people I previously considered great developers have become people I would not recommend for a job in the past 2-3 years.

> If you have a black box that spits out code, and you are unable to distinguish the quality between a top tier dev and an AI inside the black box, then the distinction is unnecessary.

Sure, but this is just begging the question. If nobody could tell, the term 'slop' wouldn't have become so popular.

▲

colordrops 42 minutes ago | parent [-]

You must be replying to a different comment. Seems completely unrelated to what I wrote. I never claimed that there wasn't AI slop. My point is that there are different levels of code coming out of AI, both due to the quality of the model and harness, and the quality of the engineer that is driving it. Thus you can't just bucket all AI developed code the same.

100% there is slop created by humans and really solid code bases generated by AI driven by a meticulous developer. You are making the exact error I was addressing, which is bucketing all AI code as the same.

	▲	dwedge 11 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I quote-replied to your comment, so I doubt it was unrelated. > I never claimed that there wasn't AI slop No, but you implied that a top tier dev doesn't produce slop when using AI. > If you have a black box that spits out code, and you are unable to distinguish the quality between a top tier dev and an AI inside the black box My point was that "if" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here and you're coming very close to begging the question. > bucketing all AI code as the same. Most people are not "top tier devs" and over time this will probably become more true. Even if I accepted your premise that "top tier devs" only generate solid code bases with AI, the ease of entry and the ease of spitting out thousands of lines of code means the ratio of bad AI to good AI will not go in a good direction unless it becomes too expensive for non "top tier devs" to use. Given this, I think it's fair to assume AI code is low quality until proven otherwise.