I'm very skeptical of that graph. What does it mean for code to be AI-generated vs human-generated?

If I merge a PR that was opened by Claude do all the changes in it automatically count as AI-generated? How about the individual commits? If I'm reviewing locally and make manual changes but then have Claude create the commit it appears to be AI-generated but might not have been.

The point is that these metrics are easy to game and I've definitely wasted time and tokens refining code with Claude that would have been easier to just edit by hand. It can be kind of fun and when the goal is just "use AI" I don't find it surprising that graphs showing 100% switch to AI-generated code could be defensibly generated without really saying anything about how much manual intervention is happening or how efficient the process is.

One of my least favourite feature of our AI era is that I can't even trust people to do basic math anymore. It used to be that a graph like that would mean someone had a (probably broken) metric that they put in an excel sheet and got a lineplot out of it. The metric might be broken but at least additions and subtractions etc were correct.

Now I don't even know! Colleagues send me graphs they made with Copilot and then we discover that the LLM did mental arithmetic or whatever to produce the results and they are wrong. Computers used to be able to do math !