this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2026
196 points (89.2% liked)

Technology

87956 readers
3456 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
196
GrapheneOS defends use of AI for coding (grapheneos.social)
submitted 1 day ago by General_Effort@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
239 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
[โ€“] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Okay, but they still happen with orders of magnitude less frequency than bugs in AI code. Consider that the time between when rsync first adopted LLM-generated code and users en masse reporting rsync internal protocol errors during a backup was on the order of months.

[โ€“] SuspiciousCarrot78@aussie.zone 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

I don't recall that one...but in fairness...AI generates a metric shit ton more code than humans. We'd have to normalize the results. Interestingly, looking it up now, someone DID normalize for that very case. Bug rate per commit for the AI-assisted versions landed within normal historical range. A pre-AI release had more regressions. The 3.4.3 regressions were primarily from the CVE security patches, not the AI work. Zero CVEs from the Claude-assisted commits.

EDIT: Correct URL https://alexispurslane.github.io/rsync-analysis/