<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>How Readable is Model-generated Code? Examining Readability and Visual Inspection of GitHub Copilot · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2208.14613/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2208.14613/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>How Readable is Model-generated Code? Examining Readability and Visual Inspection of GitHub Copilot — mentioned by nyrikki</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41760786</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2208.14613:41760786</guid><pubDate>Sun, 06 Oct 2024 22:14:22 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Strawman on the WYSIWIG editor vs text editor question. That is not an &amp;quot;automated decision-making system&amp;quot; &amp;gt; Automation bias is the propensity for humans to favor suggestions from automated decision-making systems and to ignore contradictory information made without automation, even if it is correct. Note this 1998 NASA paper to further refute the IDE/WYSIWYG editor claims. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19980048379 &amp;gt; This study clarified that automation bias is something unique to automated decision making contexts, and is not the result of a general tendency toward complacency. The problems…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2208.14613/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.SE</category></item></channel></rss>
