I had someone submit a C++ code review where AI was used to write the code. It looked like C++98: new and delete all over, even though modern c++ is 12 years old by now. There are a lot of other things that scream I learned to program C++ in 1997 and see no reason to update my skills to anything newer. Modern C++ is really a different language and yet there is a lot of not modern code out there that AIs don't know is bad.
It's not that they don't know it's bad, it's that fundamentally, they're not trying to help you. They're trying to match a probability distribution. And if there's lot of 1997-quality C++ code out there (there is!), that's highly likely what you're going to get.
If you provide high quality context, it's more likely to produce high quality code too - but it can also spiral into creating bad code if it accidentally starts off on the wrong foot. The more bad code you have, the more bad code it suggests. That's why I think it's very important to clean up the code it suggests, even if it's just cosmetically.
Unsurprising as StackOverflow has exactly the same problem.
There are lots of answers that are flat out wrong 5+ years after they were answered. There is no way to go back and "unmark" that answer.
> Modern C++ is really a different language and yet there is a lot of not modern code out there that AIs don't know is bad.
This is a human problem and why I won't use C++ anymore. Instead of "modern C++" we needed a new language to replace C++ and leave the old nastiness behind. We'll see if any of the new replacements like Carbon get any traction.
