this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2026
77 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
43468 readers
351 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is an approach with a with a time limit that is nearly exhausted. These detection methods already suffer from abysmal false negative AND false positive rates, and the further LLM progresses, the worse these detection algorithms will become at actually identifying anything written by a coding agent. The point where they become completely usekess is approaching fast - mainly because these tools are great for adversarial training - every detection tool that is actually working provides everything needed to make sure that future models (or even the current one slightly updated) become invisible.
The best policy isn't worth the paper it is written on if you can't detect violations.
Yeah and when teachers or employers use it to reject things outright, it's really dumb. But if it's presented as a probability to the user rather than a binary like most LLM results are presented to users, then it is useful. If something has a high probability of being LLM generated then it can cast suspicion and investigation can happen. Unlike how things like facial recognition are used to prove guilt without any investigation when the probability of a match is low, but no better matches were found and the police aren't told it's low probability because then the product would look useless in solving crimes for them which is what they want in a product, not an investigation tool. That's not what they were sold.
Point being. It's a tool. It's a metric. And used as such it can be helpful if all of a developer's contributions get flagged as high probability, then looking more closely at the code can be warranted. Though if LLMs themselves were configured to tell the user how probable that their answer is correct, it might not even be an issue needing investigation. It's not the malicious ones that they're looking to stop with these policies. It's those unwittingly submitting bad LLM generated code with serious consequences. Like all those destructive things that happened at Amazon (and others I'm sure, just Amazon was in the news) when they started replacing senior developers with cheap contractors armed with LLMs and no experience. Even my company has been doing it. It sucks all that we've lost and how bad things have gotten.
You did not understand. The "percentage based" thing is as good as dead. You could just flip a coin and it would have the same accuracy. There will be no tool able to distinguish between human code and agent code going forward, percentage based or not. Watermark-based solutions have also been proven to be circumventable with minimal effort.
No one is gonna be able to make even an educated guess about the origin of a pull request.