pull down to refresh

That's basically my point. Depending on how Brian Armstrong was measuring it, it may or may not be accurate to say that 40% of the code was "made by AI". It was made by humans, except the AI just assisted with the typing of what the human was gonna type anyway
I think he's in desperate need for attention and he's mostly just babbling, especially since quality > source. But I agree with you that:
the AI just assisted with the typing of what the human was gonna type anyway
if that's the case then fine, but then why is AI-generated code a metric at all? The only correct metric for this is imho: problems solved per day without regressions.
reply