Bayesian reasoning would lead me to think that a high rate of failures means even if QA is 99.9% amazing and dev is AI 80% slop, there still will be more poor features and bugs (99.9% * 80% = 79.92%) than if both are mediocore (%90 * %90 = 81%)
That's absolutely a factor here. We are missing the stuff that no one is talking about: "AI generated inefficient loop" or "AI forgot to close file handle". The documented cases were documented precisely because they were worthy.
That said, even with survivorship bias, there's a pattern.
When humans write bad code, we see the full spectrum, form typos to total meltdowns. With AI, the failures cluster around specific security fundamentals:
- Input validation
- Auth checks
- Rate limiting
I've seen no AI typo, have you?
Does it mean AI learned to code from tutorials that skip the boring security chapters?... think about it.
So yes, we are definitely seeing survivor bias in severity reporting. But the "types" of survivors tell us something important about what AI consistently misses. The low-severity bugs probably exist, but perhaps not making headlines.
The real question: if this is just the visible part of the iceberg, what's underneath?
This is what I’ve experienced having LLMs code: ensuring security is not an adequate part of its training. Of course, modern developers I work with don’t give a shit either.
The difference is you can at least shame your colleagues into caring about security and coding standards during code review. With AI, it's like it learned from every tutorial that said "we'll skip input validation to keep this example simple" and took that as strict rule.
So the work of 1000 people at a company may have gone into developing the tech that is to be patented, but we must restrict the patent to being owned by one single individual?
It's easy to transplant a pigney into a human. The hard part is keeping them alive afterward, especially in the long term. It seems like the event is not far enough in the past to know.
Not the same as a human, but transplants to other primates were moderately successful [1]:
> Researchers transplanted kidneys from genetically engineered Yucatan pigs into cynomolgus monkeys such as the one above. The monkeys survived for up to two years with the xenografts.
