Post by @communism@lemmy.ml

2026-10-23 10:27 UTC

They aren’t specific about how the question was posed, no, but page 9’s wording does state that it is maintainer-estimated, and specifies the terms “low-quality” and “slop” as the qualifier for the 25% figure, so unless they’ve made a huge logical leap, I think it is reasonable to conclude that maintainers were specifically asked about low-quality AI-generated PRs (or “AI slop”). I think people are sensible enough these days to not deny that AIs sometimes produce acceptable code.

Replies (2)

@alottafagina@lemmy.ml 2026-10-23 12:40

page 9’s wording does state that it is maintainer-estimated, and specifies the terms “low-quality” and “slop” as the qualifier for the 25% figure I’m not seeing it. This is the sole relevant statement on pg 9 where they simply define AI slop in a general way that avoids tying it in with their measurements: “AI slop” are low quality AI-generated contributions that are unlikely to be worth the review time they demand. In addition to the explicit ‘and/or general AI use’ statement, there are several red flags here that make me think this is a low quality study to be taken with salt. Or maybe I’m cynical and using the term ‘slop’ to push a research study is both unusual and suspect.

Open ##5211863
@atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 2026-10-23 14:18

I think people are sensible enough these days to not deny that AIs sometimes produce acceptable code. New to the forum? There are plenty of people who call all ai generated code “slop”.

Open ##5212892