Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2026 13:44:00 -0700
Recently (2026-02-23) the ISO C++ Directions Group (DG) / WG21 published a
document:
Strategic Direction for AI in C++: Governance, and Ecosystem
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2026/p4023r0.pdf
As one of its findings it identified a problem with "Garbage In, Garbage
Out".
*The DG sees or recognizes a critical "Garbage In, Garbage Out" problem
facing C++ developers using AI. Current models are trained on legacy C++
(C++98/03), vendor-specific dialects, and unsafe patterns found online.*
I'd say this is an understatement.
What I am observing is that high quality websites like
https://en.cppreference.com/ are blocking AI search tools because they
don't generate advertising revenue. And so my AI (Claude) routinely ends
searching for online posts made by people who are confused and asking for
help and getting terse responses that may be incomplete at best.
Next, if I ask Claude what data it was given about the C++ standard, it
says it was trained on "commentary, documentation, and discussion during
training — not verbatim text." It can identify final drafts like N4950 as
being available, but for some reason it needs to be explicitly encouraged
to consult that document.
In general, the AI companies are being very careful to avoid been seen to
use copywritten data like the C++ standard.
If we want AI generated responses and AI generated code to be as modern and
correct as possible, I think it would make sense to release the copyright
to the AI companies to use in training. And then insist they used that
information as purveyors of programming tools.
If it is well known that there is no barrier to training an AI correctly on
the most recent C++ standard and that users should expect verbatim
information, and standards aware code from their AI, then I would hope for
some improvement on the current situation. It is very easy to add RLHF
training data if the AI company is allowed to use the standard to create it.
Oddly enough, Claude is capable of providing more modern code when
requested. In general, I find AI has a serious issue where (for no reason)
it assumes your software may be 10 years out of date, unless told otherwise.
Regards,
Adrian Johnston
document:
Strategic Direction for AI in C++: Governance, and Ecosystem
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2026/p4023r0.pdf
As one of its findings it identified a problem with "Garbage In, Garbage
Out".
*The DG sees or recognizes a critical "Garbage In, Garbage Out" problem
facing C++ developers using AI. Current models are trained on legacy C++
(C++98/03), vendor-specific dialects, and unsafe patterns found online.*
I'd say this is an understatement.
What I am observing is that high quality websites like
https://en.cppreference.com/ are blocking AI search tools because they
don't generate advertising revenue. And so my AI (Claude) routinely ends
searching for online posts made by people who are confused and asking for
help and getting terse responses that may be incomplete at best.
Next, if I ask Claude what data it was given about the C++ standard, it
says it was trained on "commentary, documentation, and discussion during
training — not verbatim text." It can identify final drafts like N4950 as
being available, but for some reason it needs to be explicitly encouraged
to consult that document.
In general, the AI companies are being very careful to avoid been seen to
use copywritten data like the C++ standard.
If we want AI generated responses and AI generated code to be as modern and
correct as possible, I think it would make sense to release the copyright
to the AI companies to use in training. And then insist they used that
information as purveyors of programming tools.
If it is well known that there is no barrier to training an AI correctly on
the most recent C++ standard and that users should expect verbatim
information, and standards aware code from their AI, then I would hope for
some improvement on the current situation. It is very easy to add RLHF
training data if the AI company is allowed to use the standard to create it.
Oddly enough, Claude is capable of providing more modern code when
requested. In general, I find AI has a serious issue where (for no reason)
it assumes your software may be 10 years out of date, unless told otherwise.
Regards,
Adrian Johnston
Received on 2026-06-02 20:44:14