Post #4451958

2026-08-08 13:56 UTC

In summary, this tool attributed pretty much all code quality improving properties to AI, and works under the assumption that human-written code is imperfect, and does not use any kind of automated, non-AI tooling for formatting and quality control and whatnot, and that documentation is something humans do not write. Short, simple functions? AI! Thorough documentation? AI! Low nesting depth? AI! Consistent formatting? AI! Meanwhile, most AI code I saw were the exact opposite.

Replies (1)

@algernon@come-from.mad-scientist.club 2026-08-08 14:02

Now, the scores posted at the start of this thread are scores for one file only. This thing can't score the entire directory, only individual files. But similar distribution applies to most other files. Human signals seem to be: Short variable names (<= 3 chars), because why the fuck would I write for i in 0..100 differently, for a very short for loop in a very short function? Do you want me to write for index_of_some_bullshit in 0..100? Why?allow/cfg pragma directives. Ok, fine, I guess that's a human thing to do.Ticket/issue references, because we never saw an AI hallucinate a ticket/issue id, so any such references is a human signal. Surely.

Open ##4451957