The issue is, there's also difference between how people cram "AI-assistance" into their previously well-refined workflows. Did see the odd person ending up with the same issues as straight-out vibe coding but without the speed, including the eventual (mild) AI psychosis and later switching to vibe coding after the chatbot convincing him.

Also I think it would be pretty trivial to generate an "understanding" of the code, yet AI boosters never bring up it as a concern.

"AI-assisted" will inevitably turn into AI-generated over time as the babysitters get complacent.

Probably.

My company is currently pushing "loop engineering" on us... They are in love with Claude and keeps referring to it as "him". Very proudly announce that "I set ut a loop, and he closed 40 PRs while I slept!" (without review, of course). Based on vibe written tickets as well, which contains many hallucinations.

The poor QA department (2 people) is now trying to figure out how to test all the slop.

I prefer it less for the writing part (unless big refactors that aren't actually complex) and more for analysis. If you got a couple million lines of code upstream that you depend on heavily (ERP modules) then it's nice to fire off a prompt and come back to "you got weird behavior x because upstream changed y, here's the exact file and lines and how it flows there"

No, there are plenty on the left doing exactly that. Plenty don't mention it because there's been so much AI pushback they don't want to be written off, others don't mention it because they know it doesn't really contribute to the conversation most times. It's unlikely that your use is reflective of most AI use in these large projects.

Realistically, even your use doesn't address some people's issues. People dislike that the training data was used without consent, that's not really addressed by open weight models. You checking and understanding the output is great, but a lot of people take issue with having offloaded that to the AI in the first place. Maybe your use doesn't have the same negative environmental impact as some of the other models, but I'm not sure it really matters. If we're using AI then inevitably some outputs will have larger environmental impact than others.

I am not saying your AI use is the problem with humanity or anything, but no, you're not alone. Most people just aren't talking about people like you and your specific situation doesn't actually fully address people's issues with AI regardless.

I have occasionally used anonymous browser sessions in the way you describe, and I still feel dirty for it and think it's problematic. It did not affect the quality of my code because I never did the 2nd bullet, I never asked for drop-in code or used any, but the ethical implications suck donkeyballs so I hate that I do this occasionally - I blame really bad documentation of some build environments.

As long as you have an understanding of what you're copying and pasting, your fine IMO.

I don't get the copy pasting. That's just a convenience thing. You can easily integrate local models into an IDE.

This is the key point.

From my reading that is not the limit in how they are using AI. It seems like they are accepting LLM generated code as inputs.

This pretty much compromises the whole project as far as I am concerned.

If Vibe coding means people who don't know how to code creating code... yeah, that's kind of like giving people who don't know how to paint an airless gun and 5 gallon bucket and telling 'em to go for it on this building here...

GrapheneOS is using AI models to find vulnerabilities before others do. The Bitcoin Red Team did the same and found an absolute ton.

I hate the AI bubble, but they're forced to use AI to defend against AI.

Even a broken clock is right 2 times a day though.

Would you care about AI if it wasn't pushed by billionaires?

You shouldn't let billionaires control your life. They may not have your best interests at heart.

Non AI code has been crashing down for decades, controlled chaos, continuous improvement. We have lots of tools to put metrics on that, and AI assisted code is fairly well crushing those metrics. It's not 100% self sufficient code creation Nirvana, but it might be fairly compared to the Cotton Gin in terms of making the field workers more productive in the delivery of market ready code/cotton.

I understand this but, you have to consider the ecological impact of it, the thousands or more people whose work was stealed to train AI, the constant shoving of AI into everything and the problems that have arise from it, the campain AI companies did and do telling people they are going to lose their jobs and constant fearmongering, the constant blatantly lying of "AGI achieved", the layoffs by senile CEOs, the debt that is causing because stupid people in power gonna be stupid, etc. There are plenty of reasons to hate AI and what it is doing to our world and people lives in general. Sure there are positives but the negatives clearly outweighs the positives.

Usually, if it's noticeable that AI was used on code, the code is flawed or, at least, has copyright concerns.

It's funny because anyone seeing this as black and white clearly hasn't ever opened an IDE.

but blanket hate for AI in code is extremely frustrating

you misspelled "extremely deserved"

Look at the comments here. Do you think the haters here care?