Comparing Human and LLM Generated Code: The Jury is Still Out! · HackerPapers discussions

Comparing Human and LLM Generated Code: The Jury is Still Out! — mentioned by keeda

Thu, 11 Dec 2025 00:20:08 GMT

> Yes, but I think pre-AI virtually everyone reading this would have been very skeptical about their ability to do so. That's not quite true: while everybody acknowledged it was folly to measure absolute individual productivity, there were aggregate metrics many in the industry were aligning on like DORA or the SPACE framework, not to mention studies like https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3540250.3558940 Similarly, many of these AI coding studies do not look at productivity on an individual level at a point of time, but in aggregate and over an extended period of time using a randomized…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Comparing Human and LLM Generated Code: The Jury is Still Out! — mentioned by ux266478

Wed, 10 Dec 2025 05:16:26 GMT

Actually it's the classic "inductive reasoning has to meet a set of strict criteria to be sound." Criteria which this does not meet. Extrapolation from a sample size of one? In a context without any LLM involvement? That's not sound, the conclusion does not follow. The point being, why bother making a statistical generalization? Rust's safety is formally known, deduction over concrete postulates was appropriate. > it would be very surprising if the situation were completely reversed for LLMs Lifetimes must be well-defined in safe Rust, which requires a deep degree of formal reasoning. The…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.