AI is helping coders save time — but it's leading to more slop content than ever before

Coding is more accessible and developers are submitting more lines of code than ever Reviewers face more work without a clear understanding of whether AI was involved The Linux Foundation calls for "governance, transparency and trust mechanisms" A new Linux Foundation report has confirmed what we've

<![CDATA[ <article> <ul><li><strong>Coding is more accessible and developers are submitting more lines of code than ever</strong></li><li><strong>Reviewers face more work without a clear understanding of whether AI was involved</strong></li><li><strong>The Linux Foundation calls for "governance, transparency and trust mechanisms"</strong></li></ul><p>A new Linux Foundation <a href="https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press/new-lf-research-survey-shows-generative-ai-cuts-open-source-coding-time-in-half-but-25-of-incoming-pull-requests-are-considered-ai-slop" target="_blank">report</a> has confirmed what we've all been thinking – while AI has proven to cut code writing time down considerably, it's not actually improving the quality.</p><p>Researchers found that artificial intelligence can reduce the amount of time it takes to write code by a staggering 52%, and yet a quarter (25%) of pull requests are still being described as low-quality 'AI slop'.</p><p>While there are clear benefits (71% of maintainers agree AI has helped to lower the barrier to entry), AI is ultimately pushing problems further downstream instead of offering a net boost.</p><h2 id="ai-generated-code-doesn-39-t-mean-faster-net-code-generation">AI-generated code doesn't mean faster net code generation</h2><p>While AI allows developers to generate code at a quicker rate, maintainers still need to verify its quality and security, but with more code being written, they're facing more human reviews than ever.</p><p>The technology is starting to prove its usefulness in code review for some easier tasks, however one in five (21%) respondents actually said using AI increases the time needed for more complex tasks.</p><p>AI-generated reports have already been seen to generate false positives and duplicated submissions, wasting human reviewers' time. Developer burnout used to be a topic we heard a lot about a few years ago, but this is now shifting to maintainer burnout.</p><p>The Linux Foundation also noted difficulties in handing code over to a reviewer from a writer – just three in five (61%) say they conduct detailed code reviews before submitting it, and not all developers actually disclose their use of AI to their next-in-chain.</p><p>Ultimately, the report acknowledges that AI is here to stay within coding, with Research SVP Hilary Carter calling for projects to "[set] clear expectations for GenAI, putting responsibility for testing and disclosure on contributors and giving maintainers better tools to manage incoming pull requests."</p><p>"The answer is not to slow innovation, but to build the governance, transparency and trust mechanisms that allow AI-assisted contributions," AI & Infrastructure GM Mark Collier added.</p><figure class="van-image-figure pull-right inline-layout" data-bordeaux-image-check ><div class='image-full-width-wrapper'><div class='image-widthsetter' style="max-width:676px;"><p class="vanilla-image-block" style="padding-top:31.51%;"><img id="diM9tpwF2Lz85R8q85CT78" name="tr-g_news" alt="Google logo on a black background next to text reading 'Click to follow TechRadar'" src="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/diM9tpwF2Lz85R8q85CT78-1920-80.jpg" mos="" align="right" fullscreen="" width="676" height="213" attribution="" endorsement="" class="pull-rightinline"></p></div></div></figure> </article> ]]>