Commenters question the methodology and prevalence claims
3 Sep 15 6:41 AM · 12d ago · 1 comment · 1 source · development 3 of 6
Multiple Hacker News commenters challenged the analysis, with pona-a suggesting "70% seems unexpectedly high" and questioning whether large initial commits are actually reliable indicators of AI generation rather than human sloppiness. Others pointed to specific projects like Yubico Authenticator showing no clear signs of AI generation despite Copilot in contributor lists.
“70% seems unexpectedly high... Was there maybe some overcounting?”
pona-a_ZeD_ Student programmer and FOSS app maintainerF-Droid project Open-source mobile app repository
The whole story articlespostscomments the bright band is this development · numbered dots are the others · click one to jump
What people said 2 voices · verbatim
-
70% seems unexpectedly high... Was there maybe some overcounting?Yubico Authenticator https://github.com/Yubico/yubioath-flutterI actually don't see any significant signs of AI use. There's Copilot listed in the contributor list, but I'm not seeing commits listed under it. Did they wipe it off Github?Some seem to stamp Mostly AI based on weaker…
-
Reminds me of a professor that displayed snippets of Haskell on MS Word in her lectures, formatted by hand. I don't blame her, this was >20 years ago, before Ctrl/Cmd + +/- became commonplace for zoom/font size.
All 6 developments of Developer questions how much F-Droid contains AI-generated… →
Hacker NewsMastodonNewswiresLobsters