this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2026
278 points (90.6% liked)

Technology

88303 readers
2936 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
278
GrapheneOS defends use of AI for coding (grapheneos.social)
submitted 2 weeks ago by General_Effort@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
355 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

GrapheneOS is currently defending its use of AI coding tools on Mastodon against complaints by various accounts claiming to be users.

We do not understand where you're coming from or why you're so incredibly angry with us. It's not justified and does not make sense.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 12 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Non AI code has been crashing down for decades, controlled chaos, continuous improvement. We have lots of tools to put metrics on that, and AI assisted code is fairly well crushing those metrics. It's not 100% self sufficient code creation Nirvana, but it might be fairly compared to the Cotton Gin in terms of making the field workers more productive in the delivery of market ready code/cotton.

[–] bold_atlas@lemmy.world 18 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

Non AI code has been crashing down for decades,

i.e. the code that made literally everything until a few years ago? That was crashing?

[–] Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 weeks ago

Yes, which means most every code crashes at some point. Whether it is made by humans or not.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 2 weeks ago

the code that made literally everything until a few years ago? That was crashing?

Quite a bit more than it should.

[–] unglueclass23@programming.dev 16 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

but it might be fairly compared to the Cotton Gin in terms of making the field workers more productive in the delivery of market ready code/cotton.

Last i heard was that developers FELT like it made them more productive but actually not so much.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 3 points 2 weeks ago

Last i heard was that developers FELT

Several of those studies were published on early 2025 data, LLM agents have been rapidly improving since then. In early 2025 I would agree with the sentiment - it was kind of equivocal for overall productiveness. By early 2026 I'd say it was a much clearer advantage, both in doing the same kind of work faster, but more importantly: in doing better work at the same speed or even a little faster.

[–] HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org 8 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

We have lots of tools to put metrics on that, and AI assisted code is fairly well crushing those metrics.

You mean more lines of code?

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Not all metrics are good. LOC is about as bad as they get.

Bugs per merge is a much better one.

[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

that was previous commenter's point. you missed it. LLM coding assistants are for people who can't think their way through an algorithm.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Are you trying to make a joke or a serious contribution

[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

and AI assisted code is fairly well crushing those metrics.

Lol. You have zero understanding of efficient coding, don't you?