RE: mastodon.gamedev.place/@eniko/Eniko is correct and eloquent and sweary in the thread.It writes code approximately as good as Stack Overflow examples.Which scales about as well as that would.You only run into trouble when you want more than a few lines of code written to illustrate a point; and instead want it to be effective, scalable, secure, legible, maintainable and efficient.It is reviewing the pull requests at work, and that is definitely catching bugs. Some of them even important ones. It is also definitely wasting time on chasing non-bugs.It is possible the ridiculously detailed error coverage in the code is even better code, in some sense. If it matters how you crash and what error you report when you do so and you don't mind reams and reams of error-handling.It may improve. I think I do have a responsibility to be aware of what it can and can't do. If only to fight the people who seem to want to pipe it into root on the prod servers, just for upgrades.And to know when or if it becomes good.I've worked with worse coders, but they also improved. We'll see how well Claude can generalize from textbook examples to effective, scalable, secure, legible, maintainable and efficient over time I guess.I wouldn't rule it out, but there isn't nearly as much training data.#ai #programming
But the maintenance workload really has increased here.These machines are producing a torrent of exploits, some fraction of which are real and serious.Certainly eyes-on every one of them, but if they are short, obvious, correct, and exactly what you'd have done anyway?🤷 What do you want me as a maintainer to do? Change the variable names? Leave the exploit?Or automate the copy-and-paste, so I don't even check it?I am not in favor of that last one, but I can't defend the idea that programmers should leave their users vulnerable because it was a machine that found the bug.