Non standard actions in response to stressors is a known possibility with some neurodivergent diagnoses.
Calm responses to subjectively large issues or dangerous situations as well as subjectively oversized reactions to seemingly normal stimuli (sound being a common example).
If you're stuck at review you aren't seeing 10x development, you're seeing 10x code generation.
This is especially important because without the review/test/deploy part of the pipeline you aren't actually seeing any progress towards business goals.
Once you do get these parts sorted, you can then look at what multiplier you're seeing.
That's not to say there isn't an improvement in your workflow, just that you can't say with any certainty what kind of improvement without measuring the end to end.
It might turn out that the rest of the pipeline is way easier , in which case your multiplier will be higher, it might also be much harder, in which case the multiplier will be lower.
I'm not taking shots, i mean it seriously, especially if you need to report any of this to the rest of the business.
edit : In addition, if it turns out that review is going to be a bottleneck you can get extra resource pointed in that direction which will benefit the workflow overall.
another edit: i would consider correctly managing the expectations of those you report to as a vital skill.
TL;DR;
You asked why it mattered if it's LLM generated or not, i provided examples where it does matter, nothing you've said in your reply seems to refute that so I'll just assume we've agreed on this point.
The rest of this reply is just me replying to your additional arguments.
Ok, so you’re suggesting that people are submitting kernel patches that somehow modify the architecture of the kernel/it’s components, that the new architecture is very complex and hard to analyze, that the those architectural changes are part of roadmap and are not rejected right away and that those big, complex architectural level patches are submitted with high frequency. Somehow I doubt all of it.
I mean, i didn't say any of that but feel free to doubt a position you just made up.
I think the slop patches are small fixes suggested by some AI code analysis tools.
There's no reason to believe that LLM usage is limited to small patches.
that architectural and complex changes are part of well defined roadmap and don’t come out of nowhere and that code that doesn’t follow conventions is easily spotted and rejected.
In a well maintained project, sure, ish, but let's just say you're right about the plan/roadmap phase.
The spotting and rejection you mentioned are now significantly more time and resource consuming for the reasons i stated in the previous reply.
Also when i used the word architecturally i was referring to the logical domain of the patch and the things it interacts with, i wasn't implying that LLM's would get a chance at re-architecting an entire project as large as the Linux kernel.
At least i'd hope not.
The linked article talks only about marking the code as AI generated (IMHO useless but harmless) and increasing volume of AI slop patches.
I'm not sure of the usefulness of this kind of marking in practice, but i can tell you a way in which it might be useful.
The way you need to go about evaluating LLM generated code vs human code can be different.
And before you get on your high horse I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing a good job reviewing in general, of course we should.
Review and testing resources are limited in most practical settings, we should be focusing on best utilising that resource in the most efficient manner possible.
There are tools specifically geared towards evaluating LLM generated code for specific mistakes, this marking would enable a more efficient usage/allocation of review resources over and above the baseline code-quality tests.
The idea that maintainers spend time analyzing complex LLM generated code submitted by random amateurs looking for possible architectural bugs sounds like a fantasy to me
Which is clear from your answers, if you don't understand how pull request review works in practice you're going to struggle to make a coherent argument that requires that understanding.
To answer the statement directly, there's sometimes no efficient way to tell which patches are from amateurs, even without LLM's.
The issue isn't even just relegated to amateurs, i would like to assume a competent dev of any skill level wouldn't be submitting patches they don't understand but that's just not always the case.
and again, think architecture with a 'little a' rather than a 'big A'.
Logical flow and domain understanding in a relatively limited scope, rather than system-wide structural change.
The difference between tactics and strategy.
Is Starmer a neoliberal though ?
Don't get me wrong, (neo)liberals are politically their own worst enemy most of the time, but at least properly attribute their political shittiness where it belongs.
Starmer is a tory in a red jacket.
Edit : turns out I didn't know what neoliberal meant, Starmer is indeed a neoliberal shitbag.
Hah, 3 whole comments, all of them nuts.
Another bot for the blocklist.
Mathematically, probably yes.
Ethically and morally, debatable.
Easily provable lie, hope stated as fact, victory claimed on position never stated.
Come on guy it's like you aren't even trying anymore.
Still no immigrants, not even an LGBT ? Really?
lacklustre 2/10 shitpost, must try harder.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-set-office-razor-thin-house-gop-majority/story?id=116274023
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/03/donald-trump-historic-landslide-win-lie
https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/nov/22/how-big-was-donald-trumps-victory-8-charts-provide/
in fairness that last one did use the phrase "vast majority" to describe the number of counties that shifted to red, not the actual number of votes
I know i highlighted the difference between the two statements but i'm not expecting you to understand how statistics works or acknowledge the difference so don't strain yourself.
Your missing the part in the middle where you spend 6 months telling them in no uncertain terms that the thing they are asking is stupid and will not work properly/safely.
Various back and forth emails, a completely "justified" performance review program because of your "falling standards" and several meetings with various managers at different levels of "importance".
Also the "You're absolutely correct, ENJOY" is written at the bottom of your resignation letter or told to them directly in your "redundancy" exit interview.
The overview had no mention of a lack of support for "not transitioning" it's certainly possible I'm missing it or it's in the full report (which I'll read when I get a few minutes).
One mention of the need for corresponding levels of support for de-transitioning and some mentions of increased support for other issues alongside the gender based ones.
It sounds like OP had a specific section/sections in mind, if this is indeed the report they were referencing I'd appreciate some indication to which part they were referencing specifically.
"The overview didn't mention it, but its somewhere in this 232 page report" isn't the most useful when trying to understand where someone is coming from.
Also levels for fecal matter in most things that come from agriculture.
Milk is weird, I don't disagree, but governmental regulations on levels of "safe contamination" isn't a milk only thing.
I don't know about the fairness of this particular company but by that rationale nothing can ever be fair, just by existing we increase the suffering. Its how the world is.
Think headphones jacks don't cause suffering at some point in the chain?
Not that I'm disagreeing, just not sure how things would get named under this specific scheme.
Does it assume that it's generally understood that everything is a little harmful in some way, so as long as you don't claim otherwise, it's cool or would everything need to be measured on some sort of average harmfulness scale and then include the rating in the title.
Like "Horrendously harmful Apple" or "Mildly harmful Colgate"
A bit hyperbolic perhaps.
Genuinely not trying to start a fight, actually interested in what you think would be a good way of doing this, as I've occasionally pondered it myself and never come up with a good answer.
Incidentally, this is one of the core plotlines to later seasons of "The good place"
It is indeed the "no ethical consumerism" argument and as I said it's an interesting conversation to have.
I wasn’t arguing against your general premise. I specifically called out the lack of flexibility in your statement and what that implied to me.
And this is the exact kind of privilege and/or lack of imagination I was talking about.
It wasn’t about word choice as much it as what that word choice implied.
It suggests you don't understand how limited the choices can be under poverty, or how widespread it is.
I wasn’t positing it as a gotcha, I am "being real" when i say there are very real circumstances (for a non-trivial amount of people) that don't adhere to your ideal.
Assuming Walmart was your example because it's what you know and not because America is the only place that exists, physical distance is far from the only factor.
Assuming you have a home, even if you lived next door, that's not even close to a guarantee you'd be able to afford a continuous level of food that matches your ideal and also reaches a level of healthy nutrition.
The easy example is literal starvation, where it's not possible to secure enough food of any kind, let alone the kind that adheres to your premise.
This isn't an obscure thing from 300 years ago, this is a reality, today.
I wasn’t saying you were wrong, i was saying your argument possibly comes from a position of privilege and if you think this is a 300 year ago problem, I was correct.
edit: clean up