[Edit: Apparently I’m reviewing the wrong product; see replies.]
I tried the app version on one of my old repos. It’s a somewhat challenging test case because there are few comments and parts of the code are incomplete, though I’d say the naming convention is pretty good. The app suggested the question “What is the purpose of the ‘safemode-ui-hook.m’ file?” I accepted the suggestion, and the output was… completely wrong.
I’m not surprised it guessed the purpose wrong; even a human would need some context to understand what’s going on in that particular file, though of course the AI did worse by being confidently wrong rather than saying it didn’t know. But the AI also made specific claims that could be seen as wrong just by reading the file. It claimed the file “defines a SUBSTITUTE_safemodeUIHook C struct” when neither that struct name nor anything like it appears anywhere in the file. The name seems to just be mashed together from the repo name and file name.
Which makes me wonder, did the AI even see the content of the file? Is it pre-summarized somehow in a way that makes it know very little about the file? Or did the AI see it in full, but hallucinate anyway?
It sounds like you're referring to our chat product. We are aware of the limitations of that, this is why we created auto wiki! We plan to integrate the two in the future.
The site said an Auto Wiki didn’t exist for my repo but could be generated via app.mutable.ai, so I went there and assumed it was substantially the same product despite the slightly different interface. I guess I didn’t find the actual Auto Wiki functionality on the app domain.
I tried the app version on one of my old repos. It’s a somewhat challenging test case because there are few comments and parts of the code are incomplete, though I’d say the naming convention is pretty good. The app suggested the question “What is the purpose of the ‘safemode-ui-hook.m’ file?” I accepted the suggestion, and the output was… completely wrong.
I’m not surprised it guessed the purpose wrong; even a human would need some context to understand what’s going on in that particular file, though of course the AI did worse by being confidently wrong rather than saying it didn’t know. But the AI also made specific claims that could be seen as wrong just by reading the file. It claimed the file “defines a SUBSTITUTE_safemodeUIHook C struct” when neither that struct name nor anything like it appears anywhere in the file. The name seems to just be mashed together from the repo name and file name.
Which makes me wonder, did the AI even see the content of the file? Is it pre-summarized somehow in a way that makes it know very little about the file? Or did the AI see it in full, but hallucinate anyway?