Too many people think because something finally “works”, it’s good. Once your AI has written code that seems to work, that’s supposed to be when the human starts their work.

Holy shit, preach!

Once you give a shit ton of prompts and the feature finally starts working, the code is most likely complete ass, probably filled with a ton of useless leftovers from previous iterations, redundant and unoptimized code. That's when you start reading/understanding the code and polishing it, not when you ship it lol

Just the fact that people are actually trying to regulate it instead of "too nuanced, I will fix it tomorrow" makes me haply.

But they are also doing it pretty reasonably too. I like this.

and from seeing quite a few slops in my time

Emojis in comments, filename as a comment in the first line, and so on

Just an example:

I'm a programming student. In one of my classes we had a simple assignment. Write a simple script to calculate factorials. The purpose of this assignment was to teach recursion. Should be doable in 4-5 lines max, probably less. My coed decided to vibe code his assignment and ended up with a 55 line script. It worked, but it was literally %1100 of the length it needed to be with lots of dead functions and 'None->None(None)' style explicit typing where it just simply wasn't needed.

The code was hilariously obviously AI code.

Edit: I had like 3/4 typos here

if it's not clear if it's ai, it's not the code this policy was targeting. this is so they don't have to waste time justifying removing the true ai slop.

if the code looks bad enough to be indistinguishable from ai slop, I don't think it matters that it was handwritten or not.

I guess the practical idea is that if your AI generated code is so good and you've reviewed it so well that it fools the reviewer, the rule did it's job and then it doesn't matter.

But most of the time the AI code jumps out immediately to any experienced reviewer, and usually for bad reasons.

This is how