Comment by snickerbockers
22 days ago
>Being anti AI/anti LLM is solidly in the Luddite camp; there’s really no more debates to be had. Every serious inquiry shows productivity gains by using ai.
These two sentences appear to be at odds with one another.
The data showed llms are better. This put debate to rest. Now we are post-debate.
What data are you talking about? Why do you value it above the data showing the opposite?
It's superior data because it supports his expectations. His expectations are right because they are based on superior data. Checkmate Luddites.
2 replies →
give me one seriously peer reviewed study please with proper controls
i wait
Go ahead and move the goalposts now... This took about 2 minutes of research to support the conclusions I know to be true. You can waste time as long as you choose in academia attempting to prove any point, while normal people make real contributions using LLMs.
### An Empirical Evaluation of Using Large Language Models for Automated Unit Test Generation We evaluate TESTPILOT using OpenAI’s gpt3.5-turbo LLM on 25 npm packages with a total of 1,684 API functions. The generated tests achieve a median statement coverage of 70.2% and branch coverage of 52.8%. In contrast, the state-of-the feedback-directed JavaScript test generation technique, Nessie, achieves only 51.3% statement coverage and 25.6% branch coverage. - *Link:* [An Empirical Evaluation of Using Large Language Models for Automated Unit Test Generation (arXiv)](https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.06527)
---
### Field Experiment – CodeFuse (12-week deployment) - Productivity (measured by the number of lines of code produced) increased by 55% for the group using the LLM. Approximately one third of this increase was directly attributable to code generated by the LLM. - *Link:* [CodeFuse: Generative AI for Code Productivity in the Workplace (BIS Working Paper 1208)](https://www.bis.org/publ/work1208.htm)
9 replies →
"the data"