I'm more upset about it being factually wrong, e.g. both mentions of "git-ignored" are absurd (why would you mention it if it's not in the repo?) and wrong (they are in the repo).

▲

vincnetas 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I notice this, that AI likes to write about things that are not in there. Like i review AI generated output, notice unnecessary things, and asks AI to remove that. So AI removes that and adds that "this and that, that was used or described like this, was removed because bla bla bla" to the document.

I think its somehow needs to talk (write) about the things that are in the context and removal is there so AI predicts that it should be there.

	▲	static_motion an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I spend so much time cleaning up AI comments in the codebases I work on, it's maddening. I could have an instruction to not allow it to write comments at all, but some of them are useful.
	▲	MadameMinty 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Yeah, I call it bugfix storytelling. Once upon a time this class far far away had this red hooded method... Especially egregious if both adding and removing the thing happens in one commit. Git should be telling the story, and if it can't then there _is_ no story!
	▲	joegibbs 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Yes it's constant. And in any article it's full of "The X does Y. The Z does A. But the B stays silent."
	▲	stuaxo 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		AI writing is just bad, this things is really noticable - but even in READMEs they look superficially OK until you read them. AI probably should not be writing docs, commit logs or comments.