I think 10 levels here is too much and hints that someone anchored on 10 as a round number and then forced the levels to fit after the fact.

I don't really see much value beyond the 3 levels of AI disclosure that have been floating around:

- fully human - ai assisted - ai generated

▲

kccqzy a day ago | parent [-]

There’s a big difference between AI generated code that the human understands completely, the human understands mostly, or the human understands not at all.

▲

stillpointlab a day ago | parent [-]

"Human understanding" is not yet an objectively quantifiable metric that can be applied to code change sets. As it would only ever be self-reported (a claim made by a user submitting to a repo), I see little to no value in it.

	▲	kccqzy a day ago \| parent [-]
		It is quite quantifiable in fact, but I just worry people won’t take the time to quantify it. I do this exercise myself for code that I really care about: after AI has written the code and I think I have achieved a full understanding, I unapply the entire patch and make sure I can reproduce the patch with the same underlying idea perhaps with less verbosity in the comments. That’s what I call fully understood. If I “mostly understand” some AI code, it means during the reproduction I need to occasionally look back at the AI code to continue.