• antihumanitarian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    17 hours ago

    So this article is basically a puff piece for Code Rabbit, a company that sells AI code review tooling/services. They studied 470 merge/pull requests, 320 AI and 150 human control. They don’t specify what projects, which model, or when, at least without signing up to get their full “white paper”. For all that’s said this could be GPT 4 from 2024.

    I’m a professional developer, and currently by volume I’m confident latest models, Claude 4.5 Opus, GPT 5.2, Gemini 3 Pro, are able to write better, cleaner code than me. They still need high level and architectural guidance, and sometimes overt intervention, but on average they can do it better, faster, and cheaper than me.

    A lot of articles and forums posts like this feel like cope. I’m not happy about it, but pretending it’s not happening isn’t gonna keep me employed.

    Source of the article: https://www.coderabbit.ai/blog/state-of-ai-vs-human-code-generation-report

    • iglou@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      I am a professional software engineer, and my experience is the complete opposite. It does it faster and cheaper, yes, but also noticeably worse, and having to proofread the output, fix and refactor ends up taking more time than I would have taken writing it myself.