

honestly I don’t think they’re going on a witch hunt here, I think they’re putting this in their term of use so that they can take projects down if some issue arises…


honestly I don’t think they’re going on a witch hunt here, I think they’re putting this in their term of use so that they can take projects down if some issue arises…


If you read the article ( https://dl.acm.org/doi/epdf/10.1145/3719027.3765062 ) they are testing this in an EXTREMELY controlled enviroment and directed subjects… I have my doubts that this could provide any insight on whether this is even feaseble for public surveillance, let alone effective…


But I’m also scared. Not of the tech itself, but of what happens when capitalists decide to fully automate labor.
Dont worry that’s not gonna happen. A collegue of mine use llms regularly for code reviews, but you have to put in the work to understand whether what they say makes sense and filter out false positives which are not occasional.


This is an article, based on an article+AI that is based on an article, that cite NO SOURCE whatsoever. What are u even discussing about guys…
that’s exactly why we have mandatory code reviews now…
Cool, reminds me of Prezi (a webapp for presentations based on a similar concept)
If you can digest a 17k lines of code from someone else in 1 week you’re either delusional or a beautiful mind, I would close such PR immediately but it would still ruin my day