Post #4242636

2026-07-29 23:05 UTC

Can you help me out with some citations? I'd love reliable articles that support or refute these #AI statements: 0) AI-generated code's harder to review (because it looks plausible but you can't try and work on a "the author meant [thing]" basis) 1) People are less good at reviewing AI-generated code (because they're inclined to trust what the computer says) 2) AI-generated code has high environmental costs (e.g. figures about DC capacity?) 3) Using AI is cognitively harmful Boosts very welcome

Replies (4)

@demoographics@wikis.world 2026-07-29 23:07

FWIW, these are all things that I've seen claimed or counter-claimed, and I'd like to see some evidence one way or the other.

Open ##4457966
@noodlemaz@mstdn.games 2026-07-30 06:20

@demoographics@wikis.world some may be found here? One user's year of faved links that demonstrate ethical and environmental issues of #GenAI https://eobet.com/fun/llms/

Open ##4457968
@pozorvlak@mathstodon.xyz 2026-07-30 06:35

@demoographics@wikis.world https://blog.andymasley.com/p/a-cheat-sheet-for-conversations-about

Open ##4457969
@nikclayton@mastodon.social 2026-07-30 07:19

@demoographics@wikis.world Re 3, https://www.brainonllm.com/ is a study that looked at this. Still going through peer review (see the "Preprint" link on the site). https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langas/article/PIIS2468-12532500133-5/abstract notes "Continuous exposure to AI might reduce the ADR of standard non-AI assisted colonoscopy, suggesting a negative effect on endoscopist behaviour."

Open ##4457970