Large language models (LLMs) for code generation are becoming integral to modern software development, but their real-world prevalence and security impact remain poorly understood. We present the first large-scale empirical study of AI-generated code (AIGCode) in the wild. We build a high-precision detection pipeline and a representative benchmark to distinguish AIGCode from human-written code, and apply them to (i) development commits from the top 1,000 GitHub repositories (2022-2025) and (ii) 7,000+ recent CVE-linked code changes. This lets us label commits, files, and functions along a human/AI axis and trace how AIGCode moves through projects and vulnerability life cycles. Our measurements show three ecological patterns. First, AIGCode is already a substantial fraction of new code, but adoption is structured: AI concentrates in glue code, tests, refactoring, documentation, and other boilerplate, while core logic and security-critical configurations remain mostly human-written. Second, adoption has security consequences: some CWE families are overrepresented in AI-tagged code, and near-identical insecure templates recur across unrelated projects, suggesting "AI-induced vulnerabilities" propagated by shared models rather than shared maintainers. Third, in human-AI edit chains, AI introduces high-throughput changes while humans act as security gatekeepers; when review is shallow, AI-introduced defects persist longer, remain exposed on network-accessible surfaces, and spread to more files and repositories. We will open-source the complete dataset and release analysis artifacts and fine-grained documentation of our methodology and findings.