[PaulDavisThe1st]

We're not. At ardour.org we've banned any and all LLM-generated code (defined as code that was either acknowledged to be LLM-generated or makes us feel that it was).

This is based on continual (though occasional) experiments asking various LLMs for solutions to actual known problems with our code, and utter despair at the deluge of shit that it produces (which you wouldn't recognize as shit unless you knew our existing codebase well). 2 weeks ago, there was the claim that our code makes extensive use of boost::intrusive_ptr<> ... in 300k lines of C++, there isn't a single use of this type, other than in an experimental branch from 6-7 years ago.

So we just say no.

[doug_durham]

Use the tools that work for you. If your customers are happy and you are hitting your deadlines then there is no problem. No one is insisting that you do otherwise.

[prayerie]

This is such a breath of fresh air reading something like this on this website. I thought I was going insane.

[jstummbillig]

How do you review the no?

[PaulDavisThe1st]

We don't review it, we just say it.

[jstummbillig]

So it's not something you thought about.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

We were open to it, but the actual results of LLM code generation are so uniformly poor that until there's substantive evidence of a change on that front, we're not willing to review on a case by case basis.

[jstummbillig]

Ah, I meant review the policy, not the cases.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

We will review the policy when one of the core developers interacts with an LLM regarding a real coding problem in our application and gets back something that isn't drivel.